Another U.S. citizen assassinated by military drone

[Bitter Clinger]

A loose affiliation of people and organizations spread across dozens of countries. They have several traits in common:
1. They are Muslim
2. They wish to use violence to institute a society ruled by their belief system, which is a mix of religious and political
3. Most of them are Arab

Since there are many people who fit this set of traits who are we are not fighting against, and because these people are not confined to a particular country with a government, fighting against them is uniquely difficult. It leads to many mistakes, which are then exploited by our enemies.

Well said, sir. Rep points for you.

 

[rambone]

These people are also carrying out genocide on the African continent with the world turning a blind eye to it. The so-called Arab Spring has also brought about a religious cleansing in many countries that used to be much more tolerant. The Copts in Egypt are being killed and their churches destroyed. This is also happening in several other countries over there.

We just announced a new war on the Christian terrorists in Uganda, Congo, & Sudan a couple days ago. Mind=blown.

 

[88GT]

I think that falls into the fear category.

If we weren't afraid that someone was going to come over here to kill or enslave us, what's the point of going over there?

Fear doesn't have to be crippling. It can be a great motivator.

I'm afraid that people will break into my house and try to harm my family. So, I have locks and guns.

Perhaps "fear" isn't the right word. Maybe concern, or apprehension, or something along those lines. It all boils down to the same thing though.

Are you arguing that the morally superior position is to let it happen first so that there can be no question of the righteousness of the action?

Do you include anybody with this belief system? Or only people who are actively pursuing it against the U.S.?

Relevance?

 

[ZombieApocolypse]

These people are also carrying out genocide on the African continent with the world turning a blind eye to it. The so-called Arab Spring has also brought about a religious cleansing in many countries that used to be much more tolerant. The Copts in Egypt are being killed and their churches destroyed. This is also happening in several other countries over there.

Its almost like Christians vs Pagans all over again

 

[Jeremiah]

A loose affiliation of people and organizations spread across dozens of countries. They have several traits in common:
1. They are Muslim
2. They wish to use violence to institute a society ruled by their belief system, which is a mix of religious and political
3. Most of them are Arab

Since there are many people who fit this set of traits who are we are not fighting against, and because these people are not confined to a particular country with a government, fighting against them is uniquely difficult. It leads to many mistakes, which are then exploited by our enemies.

it is worth note that in bother Iraq and Afghanistan the new "democracies" that have been put in place both have muslim leaders, and hold the qur'an as the most legal of their documents.

 

[Carmelbythecorn]

LOL!!!!

That is your argument...

You forfeit your side of the Discussion and I hereby revoke your Posting Privileges from this Thread for attempting to refer the US Government to the Nazi's...

C'mon is it really necessary to have a discussion of analogies?
For the record...
My point is, we say it's okay to kill this American citizen, but the door gets cracked openby our lack of outrage. How do we stop them government from killing another, like say...his son?

Hmmmmm, perhaps I'm more prescient than I even thought!

 

[steveh_131]

Relevance?

I'd like to know who, exactly, we're at war with. I think that's pretty relevant.

 

[88GT]

I'd like to know who, exactly, we're at war with. I think that's pretty relevant.

What part of dross's characterization isn't clear? I thought it was a pretty spot-on description. Is it that you can't package the enemy in one neat little label that applies equally to all that qualify as the enemy and to no one else?

 

[Effingham]

And if this guy was walking down broadway, USA when the hellfire rained? Or maybe he was in his office cubicle? Then would all the deaths have still been the peoples own fault?

That would be totally different.

Please don't set up strawmen to redefine the issue.

 

[RockofStrength]

A loose affiliation of people and organizations spread across dozens of countries. They have several traits in common:
1. They are Muslim
2. They wish to use violence to institute a society ruled by their belief system, which is a mix of religious and political
3. Most of them are Arab

Since there are many people who fit this set of traits who are we are not fighting against, and because these people are not confined to a particular country with a government, fighting against them is uniquely difficult. It leads to many mistakes, which are then exploited by our enemies.

Then perhaps we ought to develop a method of war better tuned to fighting them since our current efforts are so mistake-ridden?

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

So all enemy combatants who are on U.S. soil should be afforded a fair trial and their civil liberties protected?

Absolutely. The only caveat is if they qualify and are actual prisoners of war. Then their handling should be in accord with the Geneva Convention.

That does make more sense to me than arguing about whether or not he was still a citizen.

Good. We're starting to communicate.

And by jurisdiction you mean on U.S. soil?

Either on US soil or can readily be made to answer to American authority(through extradition, rendition, etc.) which was not possible with Al Awalaki.

 

[dross]

Then perhaps we ought to develop a method of war better tuned to fighting them since our current efforts are so mistake-ridden?

Good idea. Should we all just sit around and think it up, or should we develop, think, try new things, and all the while accept that it won't go perfectly just because we want it to?

 

[RockofStrength]

Good idea. Should we all just sit around and think it up, or should we develop, think, try new things, and all the while accept that it won't go perfectly just because we want it to?

The latter, of course. But letting the imperfections go by without recognizing them as mistakes seems like that would impede the process.

 

[bigg cheese]

we should pass legislation to introduce proper definitions and procedures for dealing with this ten-year old "war" and entities rather than states or governments.

 

[steveh_131]

What part of dross's characterization isn't clear? I thought it was a pretty spot-on description. Is it that you can't package the enemy in one neat little label that applies equally to all that qualify as the enemy and to no one else?

The part that was unclear to me was the part that I asked him to clarify.

 

[dross]

Do you include anybody with this belief system? Or only people who are actively pursuing it against the U.S.?

I've never quite understood the reasoning that leads to a question like yours. Your failure of reasoning isn't from informal logic, like a fallacy, it's from formal logic. Such failures of reasoning are much more severe. I don't remember what it's called, but what you are doing is this:

All mammals are warm blooded.
All cats are mammals.
Therefore, all cats are warm blooded.

So far, so good. But then you fall off and splash into illogic.

Here's your question:

So dross, are you saying that all mammals are cats?

Reread my post. To expand:

Q: Who are we fighting?
A: People who have attacked us, or who are planning to attack us.
Q: What country are they from?
A: They are from several different countries.
Q: Do they have an Army?
A: Sort of, but not really.
Q: But they belong to the same group?
A: Not really. They belong to several different groups, some of them belong to more than one group, some of the groups just raise money, and some just print literature, and some of the members belong to more than one of the groups. It's really hard to tell who belongs to what group, which groups are violent, which just support the other groups, which groups are aligned with which other groups. Also, they're constantly recruiting and losing members of the groups, and people switch groups a lot. The groups that haven't actually attacked us look and act a lot like the groups that have. Also, some people who aren't in the groups, but who sympathize with them have also attacked us.
Q: How do we know who we're fighting?
A: It's really, really hard to tell.
Q: Do they at least share some common characteristics?
A: Yes. They are all Muslim. Most of them are Arabs. They all believe that their religion and its built in political system should rule the world. They also believe that God wants them to convert the world through violence if necessary.
Q: Are you saying that we're fighting against all Muslims?
A: Are you stupid, or just trying to make a cheap point and hope no one notices your silly attempt at reasoning?

 

[steveh_131]

Oh, I get it. You guys think I'm trying to trick you into admitting that we should be at war with all Muslims.

Except not all Muslims believe in forcing their beliefs with violence. I have absolutely no reason to believe you're advocating war against all Muslims.

So let me clarify my original question. Do you include people who don't actually participate in the violence, but may vocally support it? Or those who hang around with people who participate in the violence?

 

[dross]

Oh, I get it. You guys think I'm trying to trick you into admitting that we should be at war with all Muslims.

Except not all Muslims believe in forcing their beliefs with violence. I have absolutely no reason to believe you're advocating war against all Muslims.

So let me clarify my original question. Do you include people who don't actually participate in the violence, but may vocally support it? Or those who hang around with people who participate in the violence?

Sorry if I misunderstood you.

To answer your question, it depends.

Principles are very important and they help to guide us through life and decisions. Yet principles can fail to match reality. When that happens, it shows a flaw in the principle, not in reality.

So, you are my enemy, and I shoot you, I'm justified and I think we agree on that.

If you are my enemy and I kick in the door to your house and shoot you, and I shoot the friends you're having over to play charades, am I justified?

How sure must I be that you're my enemy before I can shoot you?

How much danger must I endure to ensure that I don't shoot someone who doesn't deserve to be shot?

These are difficult questions that often collide with principles in the real world.

So, you're my enemy and I know you attacked me, so we're at war. Now you spend ninety percent of your time publishing a newspaper. The newspaper prints damaging propaganda against us, and you are clearly very intimate with the newspaper staff. You spend hours there, and meet with them several times a day.

Am I justified in attacking the newspaper offices in order to kill you? I think so. Am I justified in attacking the newspaper offices because I think that based on their friendship with you and the things they print that they are my enemy, too? I think so.

What if I find out later that I was completely mistaken? Does that indicate a mistake I need to correct with policy, or just the kind of mistake that's inevitable.

Technically, every strikeout in major league baseball is a mistake. Even if you're batting .800, your strikeouts are still a mistake. Would you change your hitting technique if you were batting .800? Why not try to eliminate all your mistakes? If I'm trying to gather intelligence against my enemies and they're really good at protecting their intelligence, when my intelligence is wrong, is it a mistake? Or is it just part of my overall success?

This stuff is only easy on the internets.

 

[bigg cheese]

Either on US soil or can readily be made to answer to American authority(through extradition, rendition, etc.) which was not possible with Al Awalaki.

I highly doubt that capture was even attempted, though I believe you to be correct that we don't have any extradition agreement with that country.

 

[badwolf.usmc]

You'll think what I tell you to think and you'll like it!!!!!

Lol, i already got a wife, you can fight with her is you want the job.

What is the point of bashing the source if you don't state any disagreement with it? What were they wrong about? Was there something incorrect stated?

I already stated why i don't like Salon.com, but i may have posted that before the thread refreshed so i can understand your concern.

Then perhaps we ought to develop a method of war better tuned to fighting them since our current efforts are so mistake-ridden?

There is not such thing as a "perfect" or "clean" war. Humans are by nature imperfect beings, and war is a very human endeavor. You can't expect anything to be mistake free, it is an impossible standard that can't be reached by anyone.