Yemen and the War on Terrorism

[Mysturji]

Cannot refrain from thinking about how conveniently this huge threat rose, just when the agencies needed to justify their newly found out surveillance network. Wouldn't it be doubly convenient if a drone attack would wipe out the threat, together with all the evidence for it?

Just askin

Not quite. They probably had those big Al-Qaeda jailbreaks planned for just such a contingency. This is stage two. It's out of their hands now, therefore the threat is real.

[piscator]

It's not a War.

Yes it is. Whether you like it or not.

[Audley Strange]

It's not a War.

Yes it is. Whether you like it or not.

Yeah it's a war in the same way there is a war against drugs or cancer.

[piscator]

It's not a metaphor. It's
a war.

[Cormac]

It's not a metaphor. It's
a war.

Just so you know, carpet bombings, a la Dresden, would be considered major war crimes today.

Indiscriminate bombing of civilians is a war crime.

And as for this being a war - you have no defined enemy really. Calling this a "War on Terrorism" is fairly simplistic propaganda.

[piscator]

It's not a metaphor. It's
a war.

Just so you know, carpet bombings, a la Dresden, would be considered major war crimes today.

Indiscriminate bombing of civilians is a war crime.

Like Boston?

Anyway, we all know it's bad to carpet bomb civilians indiscriminately. Does that mean the converse is true, that it's OK to precisely bomb guilty combatants? Or are we stuck with SEAL teams?

And as for this being a war - you have no defined enemy really. Calling this a "War on Terrorism" is fairly simplistic propaganda.

Those dead guys in Yemen might disagree. Same for a large number of ex-knuckleheads in Pakistan, The Philippines, and Uzbekistan that took up arms against the US. There's your line in the sand: Don't try to kill Americans.

[Cormac]

It's not a metaphor. It's
a war.

Just so you know, carpet bombings, a la Dresden, would be considered major war crimes today.

Indiscriminate bombing of civilians is a war crime.

Like Boston?

Anyway, we all know it's bad to carpet bomb civilians indiscriminately. Does that mean the converse is true, that it's OK to precisely bomb guilty combatants? Or are we stuck with SEAL teams?

And as for this being a war - you have no defined enemy really. Calling this a "War on Terrorism" is fairly simplistic propaganda.

Those dead guys in Yemen might disagree. Same for a large number of ex-knuckleheads in Pakistan, The Philippines, and Uzbekistan that took up arms against the US. There's your line in the sand: Don't try to kill Americans.

Is it ok to simply assume that a suspect is guilty of capital murder, bypass the need for an investigation, arrest, charges, trial, conviction, and sentence?

What if the Russians discovered a US operation to kidnap Snowden and transport him back to the US. Would Putin be justified in ordering a drone attack on American soil to kill all those involved before anything had happened?

And, for all that it is claimed that you manage to get your targets, there are many "mistakes", and many innocent people die in these "drone" attacks.

[laklak]

'Justified', in geopolitical terms, means 'you don't have the bottle to stop us'. Putin wouldn't drone strike the U.S., not because he lacks justification, but because he knows we'd hit back. He isn't about to open that particular can of worms, there are many things you can call Putin but stupid isn't one of them.

[Cormac]

'Justified', in geopolitical terms, means 'you don't have the bottle to stop us'. Putin wouldn't drone strike the U.S., not because he lacks justification, but because he knows we'd hit back. He isn't about to open that particular can of worms, there are many things you can call Putin but stupid isn't one of them.

I'm not suggesting he would. The question is intended, as I'm sure you know, to illustrate just how many laws, rights, and international niceties that the US is trampling on with these invasions and acts of war on foreign soil.

[piscator]

It's not a metaphor. It's
a war.

Just so you know, carpet bombings, a la Dresden, would be considered major war crimes today.

Indiscriminate bombing of civilians is a war crime.

Like Boston?

Anyway, we all know it's bad to carpet bomb civilians indiscriminately. Does that mean the converse is true, that it's OK to precisely bomb guilty combatants? Or are we stuck with SEAL teams?

And as for this being a war - you have no defined enemy really. Calling this a "War on Terrorism" is fairly simplistic propaganda.

Those dead guys in Yemen might disagree. Same for a large number of ex-knuckleheads in Pakistan, The Philippines, and Uzbekistan that took up arms against the US. There's your line in the sand: Don't try to kill Americans.

Is it ok to simply assume that a suspect is guilty of capital murder, bypass the need for an investigation, arrest, charges, trial, conviction, and sentence?

That's the strawman. But I don't buy it.
It takes a pretty good case to qualify as Actionable and invest the resources. And most times, the Yemenis or Pax or whoever not only allow an airstrike, they helped with the intel. So try again. The assumption of innocence has been made already and the weight of evidence has quieted it.

What if the Russians discovered a US operation to kidnap Snowden and transport him back to the US. Would Putin be justified in ordering a drone attack on American soil to kill all those involved before anything had happened?

That's his decision.

And, for all that it is claimed that you manage to get your targets, there are many "mistakes", and many innocent people die in these "drone" attacks.

Those sorts of things are unfortunate, but perhaps Ibn Abdul shouldn't have brought the crew to his house after a long night planting IEDs to have his old lady cook breakfast?

[Cormac]

It's not a metaphor. It's
a war.

Just so you know, carpet bombings, a la Dresden, would be considered major war crimes today.

Indiscriminate bombing of civilians is a war crime.

Like Boston?

Anyway, we all know it's bad to carpet bomb civilians indiscriminately. Does that mean the converse is true, that it's OK to precisely bomb guilty combatants? Or are we stuck with SEAL teams?

And as for this being a war - you have no defined enemy really. Calling this a "War on Terrorism" is fairly simplistic propaganda.

Those dead guys in Yemen might disagree. Same for a large number of ex-knuckleheads in Pakistan, The Philippines, and Uzbekistan that took up arms against the US. There's your line in the sand: Don't try to kill Americans.

Is it ok to simply assume that a suspect is guilty of capital murder, bypass the need for an investigation, arrest, charges, trial, conviction, and sentence?

That's the strawman. But I don't buy it.
It takes a pretty good case to qualify as Actionable and invest the resources. And most times, the Yemenis or Pax or whoever not only allow an airstrike, they helped with the intel. So try again. The assumption of innocence has been made already and the weight of evidence has quieted it.

What if the Russians discovered a US operation to kidnap Snowden and transport him back to the US. Would Putin be justified in ordering a drone attack on American soil to kill all those involved before anything had happened?

That's his decision.

And, for all that it is claimed that you manage to get your targets, there are many "mistakes", and many innocent people die in these "drone" attacks.

Those sorts of things are unfortunate, but perhaps Ibn Abdul shouldn't have brought the crew to his house after a long night planting IEDs to have his old lady cook breakfast?

Sure.

Why don't we get whoever is weighing up the "evidence" to take over the policing and judicial systems? It would be a lot cheaper.

And it is indeed unfortunate when innocents are killed for political purposes, like for example, on 9-11.

[piscator]

Is it ok to simply assume that a suspect is guilty of capital murder, bypass the need for an investigation, arrest, charges, trial, conviction, and sentence?

That's the strawman. But I don't buy it.
It takes a pretty good case to qualify as Actionable and invest the resources. And most times, the Yemenis or Pax or whoever not only allow an airstrike, they helped with the intel. So try again. The assumption of innocence has been made already and the weight of evidence has quieted it.

Sure.

Why don't we get whoever is weighing up the "evidence" to take over the policing and judicial systems? It would be a lot cheaper.

They are the same people. American citizens. They've taken oaths to uphold and be bound by the laws of the US and defend her against enemies foreign and domestic. Some are judges and attorneys. They have rules of engagement. They are fighting a war.

General Ripper is a literary device. You don't have enough evidence to support a conspiracy theory of some sort of evil class of psychopaths in control of US drones, smoking masses of noncombatants for no discernible reason. Don't presume such by default.

[Audley Strange]

It's not a metaphor. It's
a war.

no it is a metaphor. Terrorism is not an armed force or enemy, it is a nebulous political opinion, a phantom menace. Besides, drone strikes against individuals for political differences seems like terrorism to me.

[Ian]

Political differences? That's all terrorism is, political differences? Are you joking?

[Audley Strange]

Political differences? That's all terrorism is, political differences? Are you joking?

No.