Obama’s Counterterrorism Policy Reset: Livestream by Betty Cracker| May 23, 20132:00 pm| 182 CommentsThis post is in: Media, Open Threads, PoliticsFacebookTweetEmailOkay, I fucked that up somehow. Here’s a link.
Holy shit. The Pres just used the T word!!
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
1. Republicans will accuse him of being soft for not using more drones.
2. Democrats will whine because he’s still going to use drones.
Just saw some wag in the LGF comments crack that he’s making this speech to draw attention away from his prom photos. LOL!
I figured the standard response from the right wing and the mushy middle would be “he’s just trying to draw attention from Benghazigate, IRSgate and APgate.” Didn’t think it would be this silly, though.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@Chris: The LGF threads are generally like the threads here. That would have been a joke I would have expected someone here to make.
@Belafon (formerly anonevent): Tunch.
@Ash Can: Who wants to take their mind off his prom photo?
Heard him listing other terrorist attacks after 9/11. A little push-back on the RW meme that ‘Bush kept us safe.”?
@quannlace: The Right’s response to that:
Speaking of counter-terrorism, Chuck Norris wrote something, somwhere about how Tim Tebow is getting screwed and that teams should march boldly into last place by picking him up, specifically the Jacksonville Jaguars. Norris is apparently unaware that even jags fans agrre with Khan on not picking him up.
Anyway, here is a somewhat amusing response: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1648795-tim-tebow-has-a-new-fighter-in-his-corner-chuck-norris?hpt=hp_t3
Can we have a link button back?
@Arclite: T word?
And now he’s schooling them on foreign aid. MATHS!
FULLY FUND SECURITY MEASURES, GOP!!!
Every time Obama says “POCK-e-stahn” instead of “PACKY-stan,” another wingnut gets ED.
This speech is just one reason why I am such an Obot. His views on foreign policy mirror mine and he has been our best foreign policy president in my lifetime by far.
Obots of the world unite!
It’s a shame that he’s having to explain this to not only the citizenry at large, but also (and especially) the legislative branch.
You really should be intellectually superior to a freaking houseplant to be allowed to be there.
Annnnd here comes Gitmo.
Heads asplodin’ in 3…2…
Speaking of terrorism, why is GB freaking out about that soldier being killed on the street? I know it was gruesome & a terrible attack, but why did the PM cancel an overseas trip?
And no one seems to be talking about why it took police over 20 minutes to respond.
Grandpa Walnuts gets a
@MomSense: Obot, reppin’. All Hail Choom Gang!
Heckler on the Gitmo line. Obama: “Why don’t you let me address it, ma’am?”
I can’t believe he is treating us like adults and laying out a well reasoned arguement for the judicious use of force! Who does he think we are?
“Free speech means not only that you can talk, but that you also listen.”
So THAT’S how it works…
@Seanly: I’m sure there’s a sciency word to describe it (if there is, someone share!), but it’s the result of the imbalance in the human brain regards perceived danger. For example, you’re a thousand times more likely to die in your car than in a plane, yet few people are afraid of getting in your car.
Similarly, your odds of dying by your own handgun are way, way higher than getting killed in a terrorist act, and yet we as a Western society live in fear of terrorism, apparently, despite the odds.
This attack was public and in your face – as is the intent of terrorism – such that maybe there were 10 other murders in England yesterday but not a one of them will have anywhere near the degree of impact this one will.
Obama: “I’m willing to cut the young lady who interrupted me some slack because it’s an issue that is worth being passionate about. This is not who we are.”
@Wag: Not Republicans. Words and logic don’t work on them, only money (and fear).
STFU obnoxious lady hijacking his speech. Why doesn’t she go to the Senate and pull this crap?!
Who’s the chick who keeps yelling out? Jesus,
Any idea who the heckler is and what she’s saying?
Can’t wait for the GOP rebuttal: Terrorism of counters is different from counterterrorism!
Obama: “The voice of that woman is worth paying attention to. Obviously, I do not agree with much of what she said. Obviously, she did not listen to much of what I said. But these are tough issues. To suggest that we can gloss over them is wrong…”
@Amir Khalid: Jane Hamsher?
@Amir Khalid: My guess is Code Pink. Or possibly Freddie deBoer.
@Belafon (formerly anonevent):
Yes, it was definitely a joke. The LGF threads are very similar to the ones here, except that they’re more polite (which is why I could never be a commenter there).
@beltane: OK, where do you want them delivered?
That interrupting lady could use a little choom. Man is she wired.
Say, if Obama is such a power-mad dictator, why didn’t he have the heckler thrown out?
@MomSense: I couldn’t understand what she was saying. It’s obvious she was rude though.
@quannlace: I think he did at the end there. I could hear her voice getting quieter and quieter but still shouting
Interesting followup to the TGIFriday thread from the other day.
I wondered if the TGIFridays I visited, which I described as a shithole, was perhaps an outlier. Apparently not. Sounds like its a chain of shitholes.
@? Martin: I don’t fancy myself a liquor connoisseur, but I’m pretty sure I’d notice if someone served me rubbing alcohol in place of scotch.
We’re not worthy.
I couldn’t make out what she was saying, just heard the tone of voice. But huge props to PBO for hearing her out, taking her concerns seriously, and then neatly referencing her again a few minutes later by adding this episode (unscripted) to the litany of freedoms he was citing. I came very late to this and have been getting spotty reception, but hope to watch the entire speech and Q&A later on.
Dictators execute on the spot and leave the body to serve as an example to those that would act against them in the future.
@Betty Cracker: You sure? If in a group, I could imagine the power of suggestion taking over and everyone commenting what a bold and powerful Scotch it was.
@? Martin: If Lt. Roberts and Ensign Pulver are to be believed, a passable Scotch can be made from ingredients including Coca Cola and iodine.
@Zyla: Maybe he pushed a button to open the trapdoor to the bottomless pit below her. Well, effectively bottomless.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
OT: Charles Ramsey can now get a free burger in Cleveland for the rest of his life.
Some reporters on twitter said she is a well-known Code Pink protestor. Has Code Pink moved one person’s view on anything ever? They just sound crazy.
The end of Obama’s speech was an incredible defense of what America is and how Gitmo is a slap in the face to America’s beliefs.
Daily Kos has, of course, ignored everything he said and is talking about how he is worse than Bush and that he is going to continue to kill people randomly with drones. Whole bucket of crazy at that site now. I think they’ve officially driven everyone else off.
Apparently it was because they had to get guns prior to responding — the GB police don’t routinely carry them, so there’s a whole check-out procedure.
I’m still trying to figure out what kind of scary terrorists murder a guy in the street and then stand around debating the bystanders until the police arrive. WTF was that all about? Again, to me that says “mental illness” more than “al-Qaeda,” but maybe I’m wrong.
I’m also wondering if there was some kind of connection between the victim and the perps or if it really was completely random. It’s possible that the victim was targeted ahead of time, though it may have been for a completely irrational reason that the victim didn’t know about.
@? Martin: Fake Scotch? That’s nothing.
TV pastor sentenced to prison/fines for selling alleged cancer cure actually made of suntan lotion & beef flavoring.
Per the movie, or the TV show?
Higgs Boson's Mate
Obama has the misfortune to be our elected leader at a time when our institutions are ill equipped to deal with those who would destroy our nation. It is beyond me to understand why they would wish to do so other than the fact that they can can propose nothing better and so they spend their energy on destruction.
But, enough about the Republicans…
@askew: Code Pink needs to stand down and learn from the Femen.
@? Martin: wow. I mean why not just substitute cheap Canadian whiskey rather than poisoning your patrons?
@Betty Cracker: I know quite a few so-called liquor connoisseurs who would not.
I’ve got a small circle of friends who have been together for 20 years now. Each of us has different sensitivities and blind spots – and in fact we have relatively few things in common. One of the things we routinely bond around is how one of us has the worst possible taste in some area (like music) yet is unquestionably the guy you want to get a restaurant recommendation from. And we’re all like that in some regard but in different ways. We constantly lean on each other to fill in for what we are bad at processing.
I have no problem seeing a restaurant getting away with this by simply getting the population who can’t tell Laphroaig from rubbing alcohol to self-select in on the basis of slightly cheaper drinks.
@dmsilev: I love that movie… Keep in mind it only needed to be passable to sailors, which is a higher bar only to being passable to teenagers. At least, according to my dad who was in silent service.
@askew: Here’s an excerpt from a Code Pink press release about the event:
Aside from the drone thing, it sounds like Obama and Benjamin basically agree. He did cover the rationale behind continuing to use drones in detail. I read somewhere it was Benjamin herself who interrupted Obama, which kind of contradicts the “we’re anxious to hear…” statement, but I don’t know whether or not it was her.
I think Drummer Lee Rigby would likely have been recognisable as a soldier from his military bearing and haircut. Also too, his T-shirt was from a military charity for wounded soldiers.
@TooManyJens: Oh, I know that story. That’s right in my back yard. A very good friend of mine lives about a block from their HQ (which stands out like nothing else when you drive down the 405). Apparently they have a rapture simulator in there. I’ve never had the courage to go check it out.
It’s a place just overflowing with integrity.
Gin & Tonic
@Redshirt: Who are equally effective in achieving actual political outcomes.
@Gin & Tonic: Yeah, but they’ve got a better style. And arguably fighting better monsters.
OMG. I would love to try that. It sounds like comedy gold.
@Betty Cracker: She should have added that we like to be dragged out of a room, so we’ll make the six o’clock news.
@TooManyJens: That’s what we think too, but I don’t think I could contain my disrespect in that situation. And it doesn’t matter how fringy I think your religion is, I’m simply not going to go into your house and be disrespectful. That’s all I ask of others regarding my atheism, so I’ll just have to abstain from the entertainment on that one.
Yeah, it was her and she wasn’t interested in hearing anything he had to say. What a dumbass.
I wonder why Benjamin hasn’t been heckling Congress considering almost the entire Congress (including Dems) are against closing Gitmo.
@Mnemosyne: Sounds like the killers were religious nutters — according to the words out of one of their mouths at this video here.
@Betty Cracker: Still depends which came first, the religion or the nuts. Which is the driver and which the pinstriping.
@Betty Cracker: It was her. It’s almost always her. I recognised the voice.
@Patrick: well she obviously believes her MSM and bully pulpit and the issue simply needs moar leederzship and lets be oblivious to the reality of the situation and deflect attention as to who is really to blame for Gitmo still being open.
@scav: I would guess it’s mental instability first, then religion. A dangerous combination.
The entirely predictable Republican reaction.
Because they don’t get enough news coverage to make it worthwhile. Media whores gotta media whore.
I don’t think that’s necessarily inconsistent. I can easily imagine that bad enough mistreatment, carried on for sufficiently long, would be less humane than being killed quickly. The people in Guantanamo are threatening to kill themselves slowly and painfully, apparently because they hate being their so much. They might well accept a quick death by drone rather than another decade of detainment.
@Patrick: She does. She goes to Congressional hearings all the time (the ones that she cares about anyway). If there is an interruption during any hearing there is a better than even chance that she (and sometimes her other Code Pink fellows) are doing it.
@Roger Moore: Christ. Humane? They think guantanamo is the more humane solution? I honestly don’t think “humane and caring” are what either is about. If guantanamo is really a prison, then bring the priosoners to trial and send them to US prisons if they are guilty and reslease the ones that aren’t. That would seem to be a bit more humane and would have been from the beginning.
@Redshirt: That’s the impression I had in this instance. Not that getting them in the other order is less dangerous — especially as door number two generally manages better planning.
@scav: Good question. You’d have to be a psycho to hack some passing person’s head off, set a backpack bomb down next to an eight-year-old child, fly a plane full of people into occupied buildings, blow up the Olympics, shoot an unarmed doctor, bomb an LGBT nightclub, hunt down and kill teenagers on an island to protest liberal immigration policies, etc.
But people who give seemingly logical — if nutty — justifications for what they do don’t appear to be as floridly nuts as the guy who shot Gabby Giffords or the Aurora shooter. They seem more culpable for their actions, and I don’t think it’s out of bounds to take them at their word that they’re trying to further whatever cause they espouse and hold people who encourage and enable them accountable for their role in the violence.
@scav: I think it has to be true in most cases. There’s lots of religious folks – even very religious – who don’t go out on the street and hack people with a meat cleaver in the name of their “God of Peace”. The percentage has to be less than 1%. Thus, it’s far safer to assume these people were always going to be crazy, and it was the religious upbringing or training which focused it or, more darkly, directed it (i.e. suicide bombers talked into the job by others). If it wasn’t religion, though, it would have been something else. Alex Jones, perhaps.
God, I just had to google to find out what Choom Gang was.
The first thing I thought of when I read this was, “Will Rigby, the drummer for the dBs was killed?”
@gogol’s wife: Now you know, and you’re in. Welcome!
Lee Rigby was in his regiment’s Drum Corps, hence the rank of Drummer (equivalent to Private, I think). He was also a machine gunner who served in Afghanistan.
Good. I just don’t recall having heard her heckling Bernie Sanders for his Gitmo vote.
@Betty Cracker: but I’m pretty sure I’d notice if someone served me rubbing alcohol in place of scotch.”
How about after your fifth scotch and soda?
It’s a false choice. The people being drone bombed are very specifically people we CAN’T capture. That’s the point. The choice is not and has never been ‘bomb vs. prosecute’ it’s ‘bomb vs. allow to roam free’. When you’re asking that about mass murderers determined to keep murdering, but bombing is… well, dropping bombs on people, that can be a really tough choice.
@Redshirt: “yet few people are afraid of getting in your car.”
maybe YOUR car, but all the teenage girls I invite into my van look pretty scared.
Standing on the sidewalk with a dripping machete in your hand explaining to bystanders what you just did until the cops finally arrive seems pretty floridly nuts to me. The Tsarnaevs at least seemed to have enough sense of self-preservation to leave the scene in the immediate aftermath.
@Frankensteinbeck: Obama made that point in detail in the speech, which I was glad to hear him do. He also acknowledged that innocent people die in American drone strikes but said sometimes it’s the best of a bad set of options, even with that risk.
@Mnemosyne: I don’t know. I could actually see doing that myself frankly. If I wanted to be heard, I might try for the arrest, or at least have people videotape my ranting. Running and hiding means other people get to put words in your mouth while you hide. I mean, if I were going to kill someone to draw attention to my cause, I might as well take the steps necessary to manage the message.
@Mnemosyne: It’s a fine line, for sure. I think they were going for the suicide attack angle, thinking the cops would kill them. That theory seems to have been borne out by the accounts I’ve read of it — they threatened the cops when they arrived and got shot, though not killed.
Are suicide bombers nuts? Is the person who flies a plane into a building crazy? I guess it depends on how you define “insane.” In a legal sense, probably not.
The “heckler” is Medea Benjamin, a presidential candidate herself, I think. She is a founder of Code Pink.
This is Code Pink’s MO — they’re not out to get mainstream political validation or pass legislation. Which is fine — civil disobedience is a long-established tradition that should be respected. But listening to that clip mostly depressed me, because it’s really predictable how most coverage of it is going to play out.
@Mnemosyne: In the UK when such a thing happens; We Keep Calm and Get on with our Lives. We have had experience with Terrorism since like for ever! Don’t forget about Guy Fawkes!
Werebear sometimes links to an interesting-sounding book that claims suicide bombers are primarily recruited from the ranks of people who already have suicidal ideation. Having the excuse of doing it for “jihad” gives them the cultural permission they need to do something they already wanted to do.
That’s why the IRA and al-Quaeda used to issue press releases. No one hangs around to declaim to the crowd what their purpose, motives and beliefs are while the victim is laying dead in the street … unless they’re nuts.
Now, Betty’s probably right that they’re not legally nuts because there is a strict definition of that, but c’mon.
(Fix’d for clarity.)
@Betty Cracker: Two more people were just arrested in connection with yesterday’s attack, which does detract from the mental illness angle. While it is safe to say that, as a general rule, happy, well-adjusted people are not attracted to religious extremism, it does not mean that religious extremists suffer from mental illness in any legal or clinical sense of the word.
I suspect that a lot of groups recruit people who are only slightly “off” for their deeds. Truly crazy people are often too disordered to follow instructions at times and may wander off instead of carrying out deeds.
The people being drone bombed are actually largely unidentified.
We have no idea who the overwhelming majority of these victims are.
So wtf are you babbling about?
Let me harp on this for a minute, because I find the distinction fascinating.
Were Japanese kamikaze pilots nuts? We don’t generally discuss them as though they were, but they were certainly fanatical and willing to die.
Take it a step further, though. What about the pilots on Doolittle’s raid? We discuss them in nothing but the most glowing and heroic terms, but their mission was incredibly dangerous and borderline suicidal. They weren’t nuts, were they?
Whether we think of somebody as “nuts” instead of “heroic” seems to turn very much on whether or not we agree with their goals.
John Podesta can go fuck himself.
What were you doing in 2002? They were protesting the start up of an unjust war. Were you? Sure they were obnoxious, but they did succeed very early on at letting the world know that this atrocity was not universally supported here in the US of A.
I vote for “wrong”, but who knows as ideologues , committed patriots, and the uber faithful all seem a bit mad. Yet if I were ever driven to extreme action, I would consider their MO. I.E. address the target, and do the deed, and then leave all others alone. While waiting for the federales, use onlookers as a megaphone.
Debatably, they are showing a bit of a moral conscience in that they attacked a warrior of the enemy’ up close and personal’ so as to leave no collateral damage. When the US attacks an enemy warrior, we are not as selective.
Unfortunately, I fear those two men will be role models.
@Suffern ACE: It is humane. It makes the poor pantswetter feel better knowing those ebil browns are suffering for the sake of his delicate fee-fees. I thought libz were supposed to be compassionate and stuff.
If you listen very closely to the horse but persistently whispered babble, you will hear the plaintive plea…”More Kool-Aid, Must have more Kool-Aid”
@beltane: The two are not mutually exclusive. I believe there was some discussion during the height of the car bombings that interested terrorist groups might be preying on or using mentally deficient or otherwise unstable people (the accusation was specifically that they had used one more more mentally retarded girls) as vehicles for the bombing. It isn’t necessarily the case that just because the actual perpetrator is nuts that the instigators are. You might say the same for the distinction between soldiers and superiors in any army, as well.
@Keith G: My horse was hoarse, once.
I just wanted to quote for truth.
@Chris: wtf is wrong with you and people like you?
Those are our choices? The most powerful nation on earth, who discards sovereignty any time we damn well please, and this is the extent of our toolbox?
@Keith G: “Welp! People to be killing and all. You know how it is. I only have a red or green button to push round these here parts.”
@Corner Stone: What are you proposing instead?
We simply can’t try these individuals. What kind of judicial outcome would be acceptable at this point? If some percentage were to be adjudicated as “guilty” would you be ok with that outcome?
The gitmo peeps have to be released. There isn’t any other alternative.
@Redshirt: I’m proposing we stop fooling ourselves and look right at the fucking problem.
Killing an indeterminate number of individuals and then retroactively labeling them as “adult male age combatants” (between 16 and 64) just doesn’t pass the wash test.
Don’t fucking tell me we keep killing the #2 or #3 guy in AQ or AQAP or whatever, over and over and over again.
We’re killing some 70%+ of people who we can’t even fucking identify! And who knows how many are tribal/blood feuds that got sold to us as terrorist “intel”.
@Corner Stone: They are all put on a jet. The jet tragically crashes in the ocean. The end. :)
What would you have done with al-Awlaki?
And yet that has never happened in any other terrorist attack. They always sneak away (assuming they weren’t suicide bombers) and send a press release later. Even when Theo Van Gogh was murdered, they attached the 5-page press release to his body and ran away before the police arrived. So why were these guys different?
@Corner Stone: I know that. But apparently the head of the house armed services committee doesn’t. The whole “Oh, Guantamo, where we just interrogate and hold prisoners” is the one implying that Guantanamo is just some kind of prison where we just simply don’t have trials. But if you overlook that small little thing, its almost a classic “Penitentary”. I’m sorry I wasn’t clear what I was ranting about.
@Corner Stone: so… we basically let the terrorists roam free.
@Suffern ACE: I was actually answering against the people trying to walk you away from your conclusion. But I just used you with cruel intent.
@Corner Stone: We are fighting a war – literally. I don’t like it either, but it’s real. Obama is fighting it more intelligently and effectively than Bush could have dreamed. Let’s not forget this war really started in the Clinton Admin with the myriad of AQ bombings in the 90’s before they were truly recognized as a threat. Chief among them the taking out of the USS Cole.
Drones are a new weapon in this war, and brilliantly made for it. Rather than having a draft and sending 100,000’s of thousands of people into Afghanistan/Pakistan, we send a few dozen thousand and lots of drones. The drones are far more effective and humane in who they kill, by the way. Would you rather it be 19 year olds with flamethrowers entering a village looking for one guy? Cuz remember, these terrorist organizations are fundamentally small time operations, couple thousand dudes tops. Compared to a nation state, they are nothing. And thus the tactic of terrorism.
So, what is it? End war? I’m with ya man!
End this technology of war – the drones? Get a clue, it’s not ever going to end, but only expand.
@Comrade Jake: What was he guilty of? Where is the evidence of what he has done?
From the pages of the Obot sellout rag Mother Jones:
@Comrade Jake: “We” don’t have a choice.
And I find it very fucking telling that you label them all as terrorists. With absolutely no proof, no evidence and no trials of any kind. Even a show trial.
It’s simply good enough for you that someone has been locked away by our government.
So… we should have sent Seal Team 6 in to capture him, bring him back to the US, and put him on trial?
@Corner Stone: Jesus dude, give me a break.
There are, on average, two murders per day in all of GB.
In contrast, there are roughly 30 per day in the US.
@Corner Stone: where’s the evidence Bin Laden was behind 9/11?
First they came for Jerome at MyDD, and I did nothing because…asshole.
@Redshirt: Stop sucking my balls and whining about the technology.
It’s about the policy. There is absolutely no reason to limit our options to three choices, nothing, drones, boots-onna-ground! ™
But seriously. Who are we fighting against? What are their targets of opportunity to inflict existential damage against our citizenry?
What are their goals vs capabilities?
If you want to fight this as an adult, then let’s be adults about this. Comparing anyone’s actions to GWB’s actions is the lowest bar I can think of.
9/11/2001 was a rather novel approach. Tactics evolve. That said, I am not up to date on the vast collection of terrorist attack data for the last …oh….3000 years.
I detest what they did, but I sorta admire the moxie of someone who is such a believer in their cause that they do not do it “cheaply”. Maybe they are believers who do actually feel that the killing of innocents is not permissible. I am reminded of the comment that Bill Maher made that got him in trouble with that company you know so well.
Deranged cowardice or focused bravery?
@Corner Stone: so what are the other options you see?
@Comrade Jake: Just because you’re a scaredy cat authoritarian hump doesn’t mean the rest of us have to pee our fucking panties and beg The Daddy to protect us and keep us safe ™.
I prefer to protect and stay under the rule of law.
Sorry if that offends your bloodthirst, or your Depends reseller.
@Redshirt: yup. Agreed, 100 percent.
@Corner Stone: can you make an argument or have a discussion here without all the ad-hominems? Because that might help your cause.
Suicide bombing was a novel approach? The particular method of the suicide bombing had some novelty, but I don’t think anyone could say that it was new and different that someone blew themselves up along with a bunch of innocent bystanders.
Or, more likely, they are what is commonly termed “nuts” and did not have the sense of self-preservation required to know to leave the scene after the crime. I haven’t seen any alternative explanation for why they acted completely differently than others who have committed similar crimes out of similar religious/political motives.
@Corner Stone: I’m not whining about the tech, you are!
Drones, Cruise Missles, SCUDS, who cares what it is, isn’t it all the same thing? Killing machines.
Obama ended the war in Iraq, and is ending the war in Afghanistan. What more do you want? Burn all the guns and tanks in a big bonfire while hippies dance nude around?
@Comrade Jake: Can you make any kind of rational rule of law argument for why your suggested approach is appropriate?
We’re fighting against “terror”. We’re holding people we have no chance of ever trying in a court of law. We’re killing people we have no idea who they are. Then we’re killing the people who come out to dig them out of the rubble.
We’r invading other nation’s sovereign territory to do just about anything we fucking well please.
If this is all ok with you, or you don’t see other opportunities for the most powerful nation on earth, then I guess there’s not much you have to say I give a shit about hearing.
They managed to fully state their cause in an unequivocal way, no spin, no intercession by pundits or opinion leaders. It was also potential inspirational to like-minded shitheads.
From a tactical and strategic point of view, it was theoretically brilliant, and was slightly blunted only by mostly ho-hum response they got on the street. Had someone pulled off something similar here, they’d have hit the bonanza. They’d have had shit-drawling goobers from Macon to Temecula trembling with excrement piling up in their pants – gun sales would be up, and pasty, puffy “heroes” from Valdosta to Dothan to Dubuque would be convinced that every black guy in the Piggly Wiggly was an African terrorist who needs to be put down for the safety of all that is white.
BTW, TBogg has decided he wants a Thursday kerfuffle instead of just a quiet evening with the bassets.
He shall have his wish.
The night Obama had bin Laden killed there was a huge crowd outside the White House celebrating. The most infuriating thing about that crowd was a couple of idiots that had big signs that said “Thank you President Bush”.
We got bin Laden in spite of Bush. Bush was the one who disbanded the CIA unit designed to get bin Laden. Obama was the one who ordered it back in again. Bush was also the one who moved critical equipment/manpower from the hunt for bin Laden to Iraq.
One has to be either an idiot, a racist or anti-American for bringing an idiotic sign thanking Bush for not getting bin Laden.
@Redshirt: How about we follow the rule of law? Stop detaining undetermined individuals for indeterminate amounts of time. And stop killing people as collective punishment.
That’s a start.
@Corner Stone: hey man, I asked you the question first: what other option do you propose we pursue?
It was the rubbing alcohol talking.
Hey, if Bush had gotten bin Laden, Obama couldn’t have gotten bin Laden.
@Corner Stone: Once again, I trust drones to observe the law better than Johnny Nineteen on the ground with a flamethrower.
@Comrade Jake: I’ve already suggested the only rational response for some of these issues. You simply have too much bunched to get past your fear.
The people in Gitmo must be released. No country following the rule of law could ever use any collected evidence to convict them of anything beyond the time they have already served. And for the overwhelming majority, the government itself says they are most likely innocent. So what would you do with those individuals?
Regarding drone strikes (which is just the latest iteration of death from above, I do not give a shit if it’s a drone or a B-1), how about some oversight? How about we not contract out these strikes to civilian and third party entities that get paid for the more strikes they green light? It’s a huge, unaccountable, growth industry. The drone strike community is a for-profit industry. With no oversight. How about we fix that?
If there are people in the hinterlands of Yemen, Pakistan or Afghanistan who really wield the power to damage our citizens our or national interests then I suggest we are doing it all fucking wrong.
@Redshirt: This makes no sense whatsoever. As usual.
Goddammit – some Code Pinkster keeps disrupting my Wikipedia edits on Medea Benjamin’s glowing propaganda wiki tribute page.
Its gotten so you can’t hardly chime in with a good DERP anymore.
One of the distressing parts about conversations such as this is that there is so much water under the bridge and so much locked in harm done that it is almost unbearable.
With Bush 1 and Clinton, we saw the reality of a developing peace dividend and days after 9/11 we saw a world (well most) that viewed our people as a victim of a great injustice.
We have pissed all of that away. We are back again being the ugly Americans who can commit war crimes with impunity, human rights violations with abandon, and are accountable to no one.
In the last month, two western societies have been attacked because of the damage we have inflicted on Muslim innocents in Muslim societies. And you (pl) think more violence will end this?
What should we do?
1. Not this
2. Maybe we need to accept a higher level of short term risk to develop better relationships paying off in a more stable longer term.
@Corner Stone: I’m all for more oversight on the drones. I never suggested otherwise.
I just don’t view that as being all that fundamentally different an option is all. It basically amounts to better droning. I honestly thought you had something else in mind.
@Trollhattan: The great thing about that Steve M. tweet is that he wrote it two days ago.
Fucking moron. Sure we can try them, if there is enough evidence for a grand jury to return an indictment. The acceptable judicial outcome is whatever outcome the jury comes to based on its consideration of the evidence. If they walk, cool. If they spend the rest of their miserable existence in the Supermax in Colorado, also cool. Life in the Supermax vs. having to listen to your absurd ranting is a push. You go slowly insane either way.
P.S. You keep dancing around the concept of “fruit of the poisonous tree.” Those words, they do not mean what you think they mean.
I gotta respectfully disagree.
Blatant disregard of all aspects of reality, ignoring both painful and beneficial feedback, and acts of incredible cruelty towards those closest to them.
If what religious extremists do is NOT mental illness, I would like to know what is.
As ooposed to indiscriminate droning where we can’t identify almost 70% of those killed?
Well, thank Allah for small mercies.
The “drone program” is an abuse of power and a stain on our nation. We’re contracting out the intel gathering and the execution of these strikes to entities that are not aligned with our government. They are contractors. They get paid to light off drones. They do not give a shit who gets killed.
And this is in our name and with the imprimatur of our government’s highest offices.
This is not about a drone. It’s about “us” killing innocent people for absolutely no reason, and then carping about how we had two choices – kill them or let scary terrorists come and slice us to pieces in our beds.
@Corner Stone: so… You would be OK with drones provided there was enough oversight, right? Or are you not so sure about that?
@burnspbesq: Sure. Right.
Thanks for your opinion authoritarian tax weasel. I’ll give it all the due deference it deserves.
Might you please explain to us what foreign intelligence information you have that allows you to make that statement with such authority?
@Corner Stone: Ah, so you’re Derp in the Sky with Derp.
@Comrade Jake: I’m against killing anyone. I’m certainly against killing anyone on someone’s unproven say so. I don’t care if that someone is the POTUS or the CFO of Drones-R-Us co.
@different-church-lady: Sure. When our government can’t identify almost 70% of those it is killing it seems pretty evident.
It’s funny how you can’t seem to fucking read.
Hmmmm……..I guess you have trouble seeing valor and principle in the actions of the “other”. Well, it is an all too human trait to condescend.
Whether these two are crazy or not. I am certain that they will be called so as it makes it easier to deal with. We certainly do not want to have to consider their ideas just and their actions brave. Funny that.
We celebrate the Alamo. We enshrine the Enola Gay in a museum, yet we disdain all types of freedom fighters and religious warriors if they target us.
@Corner Stone: so you’re a pacifist, basically.
@Comrade Jake: I’d like to say that I am sorry that offends your sensibilities somehow.
But I’m not, and I don’t give a fuck if you approve or not, you punk bitch motherfucker. Now go fuck yourself.
@Corner Stone: That’s kind of how wars go. Which is why you don’t start the fuckers in the first place. Because once you start one it’s damn hard to stop.
@different-church-lady: Oh. Well then I guess that’s that.
@Corner Stone: Both “don’t use drones without many layers of oversight” and “close Guantanamo ASAP” are… Obama’s positions, no? The issue is how to get your and Obama’s positions to become reality, and/or law.
Hey, if you see “valor and principle” in murdering an off-duty soldier who was walking down a public street in London, I guess you can find “valor and principle” just about anywhere. You could argue that Robert Bales was acting out of “valor and principle” when he murdered 17 civilians in Afghanistan since he quietly turned himself into US authorities afterwards.
Yep, nothing braver than two armed men attacking and killing an unarmed man in broad daylight. You must really love the “valor and principle” of drive-by shootings — after all, they’re defending the honor of their gang, so we really can’t judge their actions as being wrong.
You remember that the Alamo was a defeat for the Texans, right? And that they were all massacred by the Mexican army?
You might want to look up some information about Unit 731 and the Rape of Nanking before you get too weepy about crimes against Imperial Japan. Just sayin’.
During colt season?
@Mnemosyne: I hope that I was not thorough in explanation and that is not that you are intentionally playing at being thick.
–If those guys in London consider themselves religious warriors, they chose to exchange their freedom in order to fight for their cause. Do those who operate remote weapons for the US suffer the same risk?
-And no, stop acting like a twit You are better than this. Bales killed civilians not warriors. That. Was. My. Point. …Lordy
-We kill unarmed Muslims quite frequently.
-Aren’t drone attacks a fly-by shooting?
-I brought up the Alamo after you implied that only crazy people don’t try to get away. Thermopylae also comes to mind
-I brought up the Enola Gay because our honorable warriors did, then and at other times, intentionally target non warrior populations including woman and children. Say what you will about the two in London, they did not target civilians. Who has more honor?
Anyway, you seemed to posit that these were guys were “nuts” (your usage). I was suggesting that there might be other possibilities that are less western-centric
@SiubhanDuinne: Of course. of course!
No, I’m intentionally being horrified that you think that two armed men attacking an unarmed stranger on a public street and hacking him to death is an appropriate religious or political response to anything.
Scott Roeder chose to exchange his freedom so he could murder abortion doctor George Tiller. How was his action any different than what these two men did since Roeder also acted on his religious and political convictions that Tiller was murdering innocent babies? Didn’t Roeder also show “valor and honor” by shooting and killing an unarmed man in the name of his religion?
Apparently so, since we’re talking about an unarmed member of the British military who was hacked to death in the street by total strangers. Why would remote weapons operators in the US not assume themselves to be at risk of assassination?
It’s more similar that you want to admit. We’re not talking about a soldier who was ambushed while he was on duty in Afghanistan. We’re talking about someone who was off-duty, wearing civilian clothes, and in his home country. If you’re A-OK with people traveling to other countries in order to kill people, what is this great distinction that you’re drawing between whether the people killed are civilians or off-duty soldiers?
How often does Great Britain kill unarmed Muslims, so therefore their soldiers need to be murdered in London’s streets? Or is your argument that Great Britain needs to pay for the sins of the US?
How many drone attacks are committed by Great Britain? This sounds like the same argument some gang members are using here in LA right now — if a member of a Latino gang is killed by a member of an African-American gang, the Latino gang goes out and kills the first African-American person they see, because even non gang members are guilty when a gang member is killed. So it’s okay in your book to kill British soldiers for the actions of the US?
I’m pretty sure that does not support your claim that only crazy people don’t try to get away, since I’m pretty sure the guys at both the Alamo and Theropylae were batshit crazy.
As did the Japanese. You may want to talk to some people from China, Korea, or the Philippines who remember that war before you decide that the US was alone in targeting non-warrior populations during that war.
So killing an off-duty soldier in Great Britain for crimes committed by the United States is honorable in your eyes. That is truly bizarre.
What evs. I can see you are the one choosing to go off in strange directions.
All I am doing is pointing out a (Christo-) western bias that many seem to be using. That’s natural. It’s what tribal humans do. We tend to degrade that which is not part of our world view. But it may not be helpful when understanding the views of others should be an important goal.
Our side was attacked. We attached back doing many multiple times the destruction of the attacks on us – hundreds of thousands of casualties – whole communities obliterated by our war machine. Blood for blood.
Let’s assume that the London killers are being sincere. If they believe that their tribe is under a prolonged unfair attack and they attack back, is that mockable? If they choose to attack military personal away from a declared war zone (as we do), is that unfair? I guess they attacked in London because that where they live and I’m thinking a US visa was not an option.
If they make the extra effort and personal risk to make the attack in person, at close range in daylight and in such a way that others nearby are not subject collaterally harm, are they less honorable than employees who make no such guarantees as they fire their remote missiles?
It’s hopeless because it’s not about my fucking eyes. Its about the eyes of hundreds of millions of Muslims who could have been on a path to understanding us, but now see us as attacking their world. So they will defend the honor that you deny them by attacking back in the only ways that they can.
So attacking and killing innocent people who are only tangentially related to the people you have a grudge against is OK as long as attacking the people you’re actually upset with is difficult?
You do realize you’re now repeating the rationale for the US’s attack on Iraq, right? After all, it was too difficult for us to get to al-Qaeda, and Iraq was also a Muslim country and was much easier for us to get to, so …
Again, I ask you how their actions were different from Scott Roeder’s, who also felt he was defending his religion and the lives of innocent babies by killing George Tiller. Roeder didn’t kill or injure anyone else, only Tiller. In fact, you could argue that Roeder’s actions were more defensible since Tiller was actually doing the deed that Roeder abhorred (performing abortions) and was not just a random worker at the clinic.
So do you also defend Roeder’s very similar actions as honorable?
Still not getting what is “honorable” about attacking and killing people who are not actually committing the crimes that you’re angry about because they are somewhat related to the people you are angry at.
You’re probably right that this was a revenge killing for “honor,” but I guess we differ in thinking that those kinds of killings are okay. If a girl from a conservative Muslim family is murdered by her family because she’s dating the wrong boy, is that also okay and understandable because the family was defending their honor in the only way they could?
Can we call it extreme uncivil disobedience. The waiting around and not attacking civilians but forcing the authorities to attack you and willingly accepting that attack, but killing in a gruesome manner – it’s kind of like a very violent Ghandi took over the tactics of the militants.
@Suffern ACE: True
Welcome to the joy that is Capt Mnemo.
She is the most unrepentant and determined liar on this website.
@Mnemosyne: I…do…not..,. think… those… killings…are…okay.
And I typed that at the start. Jumpin Jiminy!
1. I understand the conceit…don’t like the outcome…understand the motive.
2. I was critical of those who will explain these away in term of crazy, cowardly etc. We cannot use a western paradigm to evaluate the logic in this.
3. I am worried that this is a very valid template to strike out against what is viewed (incorrectly) as a war against a culture.
I just reread # 173. Golly. I hope your misrepresentations are not willful. But anyway…the three points above are consistent with what I have typed.
I need another drink.
But why? What have they done? What makes you think their death (people in Gitmo) is the answer?
Where are we?
I believe that was Cheney’s Plan B
As you also understood Scott Roeder’s conceit and motive in killing Dr. Tiller the way he did, correct?
This is probably the part I disagree with most. It’s cultural relativism at its worst.
At least one of the perpetrators seems to be Nigerian. Do you really think that a similar crime committed against one of Nigeria’s off-duty soldiers would be perfectly acceptable in his home country?
As I have attempted pointing out multiple times before, this is not that much different than what American right-wingers have been doing to people they disagree with. If you’re sad that people in other countries are adopting the tactics of our right-wingers like, say, Anders Breivik did, then I agree with you that it’s a terrible shame. What I disagree with is your contention that this is somehow a cultural expression that we can’t possibly understand even though we have had almost identical crimes happen here in the US from very similar motives.
I suppose the whole “lecturing bystanders about why you had to hack a stranger to death with machetes” is a bit of an innovation on the basic theme, but I seriously doubt it’s going to become a frequent feature of this kind of crime.
@Mnemosyne: I’d like to say I am stunned by just how awful, twisted and mendacious you are.
But I am not.
You are one of the worst people I have ever encountered on the intertrons.