Drones kill U.S. citizens in Pakistan

[SteyrAUG]

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]

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.

[SteyrAUG]

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]

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/politi...ma-drones-cia/



Barack Obama 'has authority to use drone strikes to kill Americans on US soil'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...n-US-soil.html

[SkiDevil]

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..._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]

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 . . .

[ABNAK]

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.