View Full Version : Drones kill U.S. citizens in Pakistan
U.S. drones kill U.S citizens in Pakistan, of whom two were alleged AQAP terrorists.
Three Americans, one of whom was a hostage held by al-Qaida, were killed during counterterrorism operations this year near the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan, the White House said Thursday morning.
Officials also said Thursday that Ahmed Farouq, an American who they call an al-Qaida leader, was killed in the same operation that claimed Weinstein's and Lo Porto's lives. Adam Gadahn, another American member of al-Qaida, was also killed in January, in what the White House said was "likely" a separate military operation in the same region. Officials said that neither members were "specifically targeted," and intelligence personnel did not know they were present at the sites of the strikes.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/white-house/white-house-three-americans-killed-in-counterterrorism-operations-20150423
Adam Gadahan
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Gadahn.PNG
Warren Weinstein
http://i1.tribune.com.pk/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/651180-WarrenWeinstein-1388090281-958-640x480.jpg
Haven't they been looking for Gadahan since 2001?
ForTehNguyen
04-23-15, 17:27
killing 2 hostages (1 american, 1 italian) isnt a big deal?
killing 2 hostages (1 american, 1 italian) isnt a big deal?
You act like it was intentional.
When you travel to countries where you have a 85% of being kidnapped because you feel it is your duty to save people who dislike/hate you, well then.. I'm sure you can figure where I'm going with this.
killing 2 hostages (1 american, 1 italian) isnt a big deal?
Would you prefer we waited until their heads were sawed off? Sucks when ANYONE innocent dies, best way to prevent that is to kill bad guys.
Not a problem.
Sorry for the hostage (really mean it), but I don't GAF abut the others, especially Gadahn.
MountainRaven
04-23-15, 21:02
Coming soon to a neighborhood near you!
Coming soon to a neighborhood near you!
That's a bigtime stretch and you know it.
What are we supposed to do, serve them with a f*****g warrant?
MountainRaven
04-23-15, 21:18
That's a bigtime stretch and you know it.
The only stretch is going from bombing Americans abroad to bombing Americans at home.
Remember: If you like guns, vote Republican, are white, male, served in the military, a Christian... you're probably a terrorist. And this strike was carried out with so little intelligence that it took them three months to figure out that there were three Americans and an Italian killed in the attack: So "we probably won't kill any hostages" and "we probably will kill terrorists" is sufficient evidence for the President to authorize a drone strike. Counter-terrorism by Special Agent Johnson and Agent Johnson (no relation) of the FBI, "Figure we take out the terrorists. Lose twenty, twenty-five percent of the hostages, tops." "I can live with that."
What are we supposed to do, serve them with a f*****g warrant?
Well, given the choice between that and allowing a politician like Obama to make the choice... which would you rather have?
I don't think it would be too crazy to suggest that any American targeted for being killed should be publicly tried in absentia before they can be killed at the command of the President of the United States. I mean, it still reeks of the kangaroo courts of the Stasi and KGB, but at least it would be an open process that allows the American people to know what the f___ their government is wanting to do to a fellow citizen, rather than letting the government decide in the shadows who they get to kill and not kill. Might as well leave the killing to NSA-derived metadata algorithms and flying autonomous aircraft carriers, if that's your preference.
The only stretch is going from bombing Americans abroad to bombing Americans at home.
Remember: If you like guns, vote Republican, are white, male, served in the military, a Christian... you're probably a terrorist. And this strike was carried out with so little intelligence that it took them three months to figure out that there were three Americans and an Italian killed in the attack: So "we probably won't kill any hostages" and "we probably will kill terrorists" is sufficient evidence for the President to authorize a drone strike. Counter-terrorism by Special Agent Johnson and Agent Johnson (no relation) of the FBI, "Figure we take out the terrorists. Lose twenty, twenty-five percent of the hostages, tops." "I can live with that."
When they had Bob Mathews confined to a cabin with no means of escape, they went ahead and burnt it down. Not sure how dramatically different a drone strike would have been.
And nobody is sacrificing hostages, we've actually taken a beating trying to rescue a few recently. The question is do we save more lives by killing terrorists NOW or by trying to rescue hostages in the future.
MountainRaven
04-23-15, 22:29
When they had Bob Mathews confined to a cabin with no means of escape, they went ahead and burnt it down. Not sure how dramatically different a drone strike would have been.
And nobody is sacrificing hostages, we've actually taken a beating trying to rescue a few recently. The question is do we save more lives by killing terrorists NOW or by trying to rescue hostages in the future.
Well, yes, if you're comparing being killed by Hellfire and being killed by fire, dead is dead.
However, Bob Mathews was surrounded and had already engaged the FBI in a firefight when his house started burning. He could have chosen not to engage the FBI. He could have surrendered at any point leading up to his death. Moreover, the FBI knew exactly who they were shooting at and who was shooting at them.
These herpa-durkas were not in a firefight with anybody. They were not given the option of surrendering. They likely didn't even know that they were in anybody's sights until they woke up on a bench outside Saint Peter's gate. And until recently, the government didn't even know they had them in their sights.
IOW, Bob Mathews would have been a in similar situation, if the FBI had gone to Reagan and said, "Hey, we think there might be some dude from The Order in this house," and Reagan had ordered an AH-1 to put a Hellfire (or whatever guided air-to-ground weapon system was in use at the time) in his living room.
I'm all for killing these motherf___ers, but I'd prefer not to give government a framework so easily twisted against American citizens.
Well, yes, if you're comparing being killed by Hellfire and being killed by fire, dead is dead.
However, Bob Mathews was surrounded and had already engaged the FBI in a firefight when his house started burning. He could have chosen not to engage the FBI. He could have surrendered at any point leading up to his death. Moreover, the FBI knew exactly who they were shooting at and who was shooting at them.
These herpa-durkas were not in a firefight with anybody. They were not given the option of surrendering. They likely didn't even know that they were in anybody's sights until they woke up on a bench outside Saint Peter's gate. And until recently, the government didn't even know they had them in their sights.
IOW, Bob Mathews would have been a in similar situation, if the FBI had gone to Reagan and said, "Hey, we think there might be some dude from The Order in this house," and Reagan had ordered an AH-1 to put a Hellfire (or whatever guided air-to-ground weapon system was in use at the time) in his living room.
I'm all for killing these motherf___ers, but I'd prefer not to give government a framework so easily twisted against American citizens.
Yeah, not that I'm defending the guy, but Mathews did not just have his house start burning. He also was responsible for far fewer deaths than even one of those POS we just droned. I fully understand the point you are making, but I don't really see "killing terrorists actively supporting Al Quida in a war zone" being a slippery slope to "drone striking a guy in Detroit who is willing to bomb the next public event in the name of ISIS."
I don't think it will be that easily twisted, of course maybe I'm giving the government more credit than they deserve. The bottom line for me is "I'm all for killing these motherf___ers."
Moose-Knuckle
04-24-15, 00:06
Coming soon to a neighborhood near you!
Holder does not rule out drone strike scenario in U.S.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/05/politics/obama-drones-cia/
Barack Obama 'has authority to use drone strikes to kill Americans on US soil'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9913615/Barack-Obama-has-authority-to-use-drone-strikes-to-kill-Americans-on-US-soil.html
As president and as commander in chief, I take full responsibility for all our counterterrorism operations, the grim-faced president told reporters as television cameras broadcast his words. I profoundly regret what happened, he added. On behalf of the United States government, I offer our deepest apologies to the families.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/world/asia/2-qaeda-hostages-were-accidentally-killed-in-us-raid-white-house-says.html?_r=0&referrer=
I was watching the nightly news with my father last night and when we heard the President make his statement above we both remarked; how exactly are you going to take responsibility?
Bring back the dead? The fact is tragedies will occur but the problem with the Obama Administration is their blatant lack of transparency, veracity, and total lack of creditability.
As to the matter of the drones in the U.S. being used in CONUS, they are already in use. Even cities are using drones in many parts of the US.
Moose-Knuckle
04-24-15, 03:54
As to the matter of the drones in the U.S. being used in CONUS, they are already in use. Even cities are using drones in many parts of the US.
This is true, but where we are heading is the use of ARMED drones against US citizens/targets in CONUS. You know, anything in the name of safety . . .
These herpa-durkas were not in a firefight with anybody. They were not given the option of surrendering. They likely didn't even know that they were in anybody's sights until they woke up on a bench outside Saint Peter's gate. And until recently, the government didn't even know they had them in their sights.
Wouldn't it be Allah's gate, not St. Peter's? I don't GAF if they are dead. Not one iota. I almost never agree with anything Obama does, but this is one issue where I'll reluctantly agree (as I hate the bastard).
The "It can happen to you too" thing is ignoring common sense. No one is suggesting a drone strike against someone in the U.S., as we have LEO's to deal with that. I have ZERO issues with a declared enemy of the U.S. (and our way of life) being killed overseas while actively engaged in hostilities with the U.S.. None whatsoever.
To suggest it can/will occur domestically is comparing apples to oranges. That said, the use of similar force here at home is something I would NEVER put past the Left at some point in the future......but it would NOT pass the smell test like this does. I would oppose the use of such force domestically with as much energy as I could muster.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.