Comparing the torture of captured prisoners to eliminating bad guys on the battle field is a non-starter. Also, there are many reports that the intel used to get OBL was not from waterboarding with most saying it was quite the opposite.

Again, the 16-year old kid was not a target...he was in the wrong place at the right time. There is no evidence to support any other conclusion.

And again, I am all for changes to the current drone program...and I would prefer that the administration release the authorization memo for this to the Congressional committees that have oversight here.

My issues with Bush were hardly ever with the way he ran the daily details of the war so I'm not really altering any positions here. Not to mention, Obama's words in 2007 were mainly that we would stop torture, and bring our troops home and that is clearly happening. Yes, I wish it were happening faster.

That is such a bull**** response.

You cannot believe the things that you are typing. No way. Blind support if I have ever seen it.

(02-07-2013 09:40 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Comparing the torture of captured prisoners to eliminating bad guys AND THEIR KIDS on the battle field is a non-starter.

saying wrong place wrong time is not a very good defense.

Those terrorists getting waterboarded were in the wrong place at the wrong time too. Does that make it better in your eyes??

Didn't think so....

(02-07-2013 09:40 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Comparing the torture of captured prisoners to eliminating bad guys on the battle field is a non-starter.

So taking a kill everyone/take no prisoners approach is more ethical than torturing them? Again, the rate of "bad guy" vs innocent civilians killed is extremely low.

Quote:Also, there are many reports that the intel used to get OBL was not from waterboarding with most saying it was quite the opposite.

You'd think the Obama Administration could have filled Ms. Bigelow in on that while they were leaking info to her.

Quote:Again, the 16-year old kid was not a target...he was in the wrong place at the right time. There is no evidence to support any other conclusion.

Again, you don't know that. But I guess you've repeated that lie long enough that you actually believe it now.

Jon Stewart did a piece on this last night.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-fe...13/skygall

(02-07-2013 11:50 AM)MonarchManiac Wrote:  saying wrong place wrong time is not a very good defense.

Those terrorists getting waterboarded were in the wrong place at the wrong time too. Does that make it better in your eyes??

Didn't think so....

Dude, you're making even lense sense than usual.

Blazer, you also have zero evidence that the kid was the target. Yet that hasn't stopped you in the past from saying that Obama purposely targeted and killed the kid...although what little I've read from you lately gives the impression that you're finally coming to grips with that.

Quote:In the case of Awlaki’s son, however, U.S. officials have been willing to talk only on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the matter.

Two U.S. officials said the intended target of the Oct. 14 airstrike was Ibrahim al-Banna, an Egyptian who was a senior operative in Yemen’s al-Qaeda affiliate.

Our government tortures us, why shouldn't they torture other people around the world. Spread the love.

(02-07-2013 12:21 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Blazer, you also have zero evidence that the kid was the target. Yet that hasn't stopped you in the past from saying that Obama purposely targeted and killed the kid...although what little I've read from you lately gives the impression that you're finally coming to grips with that.

And why is there a lack of evidence? Because Obama won't allow there to be. And that's good enough for you. Given that there is even suspicion that they may have targeted a 16 year old American child, shouldn't the "most transparent administration ever" be quick to provide proof that he wasn't the target if they had any, instead of just saying he should have had a "far more responsible father?"

(02-07-2013 12:26 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

Quote:In the case of Awlaki’s son, however, U.S. officials have been willing to talk only on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the matter.

Two U.S. officials said the intended target of the Oct. 14 airstrike was Ibrahim al-Banna, an Egyptian who was a senior operative in Yemen’s al-Qaeda affiliate.

They also told us that al-Banna was killed, and that Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was a 21 year old militant. As I've already asked you several times, why do you continue to believe the Obama administration's every word, when they have already been caught lying about details of the drone program numerous times?

Abdulrahman al-Awlaki clearly fits the Obama administration's definition of a militant (any military aged male, whatever that means). Esquire reported that he was at a cookout with friends and family. Why would you expect al-Banna to have been there?

Yes...a couple officials speculated that the kid was 21...but that was quickly corrected once we found out who he was. More proof to me that he wasn't the target.

And yes...I've said that we should release the justification...but until then...I'm not going to say that he was the target because I don't know. Look...I believe in all my heart that W started the Iraq war to avenge the death threat on his daddy... but I have no proof so I don't keep stating that he did. Understand?

And I've told you many times that I don't agree with everything Obama has done and will do.

Finally, that 'more responsible father' crap was in no way an official WH position. It was just Gibbs spouting off. Gibbs wasn't working for the WH at the time.

(02-07-2013 01:54 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Yes...a couple officials speculated that the kid was 21...but that was quickly corrected once we found out who he was. More proof to me that he wasn't the target.

That's "proof" to you? Their intelligence showing that he was a "militant" makes it more likely to me that he could have been the target. As we already know, they have targeted people whose identities were not fully known.

Quote:And yes...I've said that we should release the justification...but until then...I'm not going to say that he was the target because I don't know. Look...I believe in all my heart that W started the Iraq war to avenge the death threat on his daddy... but I have no proof so I don't keep stating that he did. Understand?

Funny..."not having proof" of guilt doesn't seem to preclude Obama from killing people (but not from accusing someone of killing people?). I'm simply applying the same "guilty until proven innocent" (which is considerably harder when the suspect has been blown into tiny pieces) that the Obama administration lives by.

Quote:And I've told you many times that I don't agree with everything Obama has done and will do.

Finally, that 'more responsible father' crap was in no way an official WH position. It was just Gibbs spouting off. Gibbs wasn't working for the WH at the time.

But he was at the time of the strike, correct?

We shot at a high priority target. We killed somebody else too. So f-ing what? WTF do you EXPECT to happen?

The republicans who criticize Obama on this are no better than the democrats who blasted George W. Bush for the budget deficits but now defend Obama's. Party over country, on both sides.

The comments by Gibbs were made last October, a week before the foreign policy debate. He was an Obama campaign advisor at the time...he was not in the employ of the WH.

(02-07-2013 02:15 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  The comments by Gibbs were made last October, a week before the foreign policy debate. He was an Obama campaign advisor at the time...he was not in the employ of the WH.

Tom, I'm sorry, but this is the kind of parsing words crap that really p*ss*s a lot of people off about the left. Go to great lengths to structure things so that some sort of technical denial can be offered later. Does it really make any substantive difference what color his paycheck was at the time? Is there any divide of opinion between the two entities? Why not just own up to what you actually believe?

(02-07-2013 02:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  We shot at a high priority target.

You don't know that.

Quote:We killed somebody else too. So f-ing what? WTF do you EXPECT to happen?

Well, we could not use tactics that kill a large number of civilians (49 for every 1 militant, according to a thorough study by Stanford and NYU) which increases AQ sympathy and anti-American sentiment and increases the likelihood of future attacks, but I guess that would be too detrimental to the cause of ensuring perpetual war and policing the globe.

Quote:The republicans who criticize Obama on this are no better than the democrats who blasted George W. Bush for the budget deficits but now defend Obama's. Party over country, on both sides.

Yeah, criticizing deficit spending is totally the same as criticizing Obama asserting the right to kill Americans without a trial.

(02-07-2013 02:15 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  The comments by Gibbs were made last October, a week before the foreign policy debate. He was an Obama campaign advisor at the time...he was not in the employ of the WH.

But he was at the time of the strike, which means he provides insight into the administration's view about the strike.

(02-07-2013 02:30 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(02-07-2013 02:15 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  The comments by Gibbs were made last October, a week before the foreign policy debate. He was an Obama campaign advisor at the time...he was not in the employ of the WH.

But he was at the time of the strike, which means he provides insight into the administration's view about the strike.

No, that's not true. He left the White House on 2/11/11. The kid was killed on 9/4/11.

(02-07-2013 02:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-07-2013 02:15 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  The comments by Gibbs were made last October, a week before the foreign policy debate. He was an Obama campaign advisor at the time...he was not in the employ of the WH.

Tom, I'm sorry, but this is the kind of parsing words crap that really p*ss*s a lot of people off about the left. Go to great lengths to structure things so that some sort of technical denial can be offered later. Does it really make any substantive difference what color his paycheck was at the time? Is there any divide of opinion between the two entities? Why not just own up to what you actually believe?

Sorry...in the future, I'll refrain from posting facts.