Al Qaeda Calls On American Muslims To Attack USA

[blu]

While there are areas where I disagree with President Obama, his handling of the wars is not one of them. He has shown himself to be a very effective 'warrior'. He has ordered the use of drones on a regular basis, and that saves American lives while inflicting pain on the enemy.

Credit him for being an effective order signer, but don't offend the real warriors by comparing him to those who actually risk their lives.

fair enough. As you and ollie point out, warrior is a poor choice of words. The point I was trying to make is that he is prosecuting the war, not just giving up. based on his campain rehtoric, I half-way expected him to call it "peace with honor" and bring the troops home, like Nixon did in Vietnam. That is really all I meant.
While the drones certainly can't do it all, it does seem to be a way to cause the enemy pain while minimizing the risk to our troops. I am pleased that he orders the use of them, and don't care who the advisors are that tell him to do it. In the end, Obama signs the order.

about the bold part, he campaigned on winding down iraq (in accordance with the deal bush setup) and sending more troops into afghanistan and putting a lot of pressure on pakistan. he has done all of these things, even considering his slowness and bs about taking his time to fufill the troop increase request.

agreed on the drones, they have caused more damage to the pakistan in 1 year than the last 6 combined.

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

do you really think drones can completely replace troops in urban environments or densely packed terrain

of course not. I was commenting on the Cali-'tard's statement.

but your response was about drones instead of troops??? what were you getting at then

the statement she made!

 

[Liability]

Unless I am missing my guess, the Connecticut "case" you make reference to was NOT a trial. I was CORRECT when I challenged YOUR erroneous contention that there was a "trial." Not only were you wrong in THAT instance, but more broadly, there is NO CASE you can point to where a criminal defendant is forbidden from speaking about his own case or from attending his own trial (absent contemptuous behavior in a court room, of course).

Instead, the Connecticut matter was a situation where Federal investigators had issued a National Security Letter(s) (NSL) to some libraries invoking, per the provisions of the law, the requirement that the librarians not disclose the existence of the NSL to the persons being investigated. Absolutely valid perfectly reasonable common sense.

The librarians (with the help of the ACLU) declared that they were being "gagged." Oh nosies!

Ring the alarums, sirrah!

Give me a fucking break.

The POINT of a gag order is to prevent the persons BEING investigated from learning of the investigation in order to prevent their change of behavior (which would impede the investigation). [If the FBI were hot on the trail of some Islamic Jihad fuckers, for example, who were conspiring to set off bombs in a city subway system, and the disclosure of some NSL might prematurely tip-off the conspirators and prevent their timely apprehension, what is the objection to telling the recipient of the NSLs to shut up about it for a while?]

It is not very much different than a Grand Jury proceeding (secret at least in NY State by operation of law) which is sometimes undertaken to investigate some alleged crime BEFORE an arrest is made. If the Grand Jury issues a subpoena, it too calls for secrecy and non-disclosure JUST AS some Court authorized wiretap orders (etc) require non-disclosure.

It is an obvious and legitimate need of law enforcement and it certainly can be a damn important tool to investigate the prospect of a terror conspiracy.
I "get" the fact that the librarians feel some fucking misguided "lib" sense of duty to challenge everything and anything asked of them by the Federal Government, but sometimes the decision on when secrecy is required really isn't up to them and their precious sensibilities.

And yes, there can be criminal sanctions for failing to comply with such a direction NOT to reveal the existence of an NSL. So what? Why the fuck shouldn't there be?

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

Credit him for being an effective order signer, but don't offend the real warriors by comparing him to those who actually risk their lives.

fair enough. As you and ollie point out, warrior is a poor choice of words. The point I was trying to make is that he is prosecuting the war, not just giving up. based on his campain rehtoric, I half-way expected him to call it "peace with honor" and bring the troops home, like Nixon did in Vietnam. That is really all I meant.
While the drones certainly can't do it all, it does seem to be a way to cause the enemy pain while minimizing the risk to our troops. I am pleased that he orders the use of them, and don't care who the advisors are that tell him to do it. In the end, Obama signs the order.

about the bold part, he campaigned on winding down iraq (in accordance with the deal bush setup) and sending more troops into afghanistan and putting a lot of pressure on pakistan. he has done all of these things, even considering his slowness and bs about taking his time to fufill the troop increase request.

agreed on the drones, they have caused more damage to the pakistan in 1 year than the last 6 combined.

The more drone use, in appropriate settings, the less we have to use feet on the ground, right? And drones can go where troops have difficulty.... one of those "Higher Ground" things, they have the advantage!

 

[Liability]

fair enough. As you and ollie point out, warrior is a poor choice of words. The point I was trying to make is that he is prosecuting the war, not just giving up. based on his campain rehtoric, I half-way expected him to call it "peace with honor" and bring the troops home, like Nixon did in Vietnam. That is really all I meant.
While the drones certainly can't do it all, it does seem to be a way to cause the enemy pain while minimizing the risk to our troops. I am pleased that he orders the use of them, and don't care who the advisors are that tell him to do it. In the end, Obama signs the order.

about the bold part, he campaigned on winding down iraq (in accordance with the deal bush setup) and sending more troops into afghanistan and putting a lot of pressure on pakistan. he has done all of these things, even considering his slowness and bs about taking his time to fufill the troop increase request.

agreed on the drones, they have caused more damage to the pakistan in 1 year than the last 6 combined.

The more drone use, in appropriate settings, the less we have to use feet on the ground, right? And drones can go where troops have difficulty.... one of those "Higher Ground" things, they have the advantage!

Wow. You won't give that poor old President Obama ANY slack. He gets hammered by many for his allegedly undue reliance on the use of drones, but you criticize his somewhat restrained use of drones as being not used enough.

Drones are less likely to be as precise as the professional soldiers. The use of drones has received wide-spread condemnation from a variety of people -- including the Government of Pakistan -- largely to the extent that their use has caused a significant number of civilian deaths -- the so-called "collateral damage."

In some cases, therefore, the use of drones is neither practical nor desirable even though it would be wonderful to avoid having to put any of our troops at greater risk.

We could nuke the mountains where Osama is suspected of hiding, too, in theory. But the collateral damage then would be even more outrageous. Still, it would prevent additional risks to our troops. Does that mean you favor the use of tactical nukes?

 

[slackjawed]

about the bold part, he campaigned on winding down iraq (in accordance with the deal bush setup) and sending more troops into afghanistan and putting a lot of pressure on pakistan. he has done all of these things, even considering his slowness and bs about taking his time to fufill the troop increase request.

agreed on the drones, they have caused more damage to the pakistan in 1 year than the last 6 combined.

The more drone use, in appropriate settings, the less we have to use feet on the ground, right? And drones can go where troops have difficulty.... one of those "Higher Ground" things, they have the advantage!

Wow. You won't give that poor old President Obama ANY slack. He gets hammered by many for his allegedly undue reliance on the use of drones, but you criticize his somewhat restrained use of drones as being not used enough.

Drones are less likely to be as precise as the professional soldiers. The use of drones has received wide-spread condemnation from a variety of people -- including the Government of Pakistan -- largely to the extent that their use has caused a significant number of civilian deaths -- the so-called "collateral damage."

In some cases, therefore, the use of drones is neither practical nor desirable even though it would be wonderful to avoid having to put any of our troops at greater risk.

We could nuke the mountains where Osama is suspected of hiding, too, in theory. But the collateral damage then would be even more outrageous. Still, it would prevent additional risks to our troops. Does that mean you favor the use of tactical nukes?

I might be supportive of the use of tactical nukes, depends.
I am in favor of the use of drones. At least some of the civilian deaths they cause are those that are providing shelter to our enemies. If we cause them enough pain, they will likely not want those guys around anymore.
War is hell, I think it is a piss-poor way to settle something. That said, once the decision is made to prosecute a war, we should do so with everything in our arsenal in a way that causes the most pain to the enemy and the least pain to our side.

 

[Liability]

The more drone use, in appropriate settings, the less we have to use feet on the ground, right? And drones can go where troops have difficulty.... one of those "Higher Ground" things, they have the advantage!

Wow. You won't give that poor old President Obama ANY slack. He gets hammered by many for his allegedly undue reliance on the use of drones, but you criticize his somewhat restrained use of drones as being not used enough.

Drones are less likely to be as precise as the professional soldiers. The use of drones has received wide-spread condemnation from a variety of people -- including the Government of Pakistan -- largely to the extent that their use has caused a significant number of civilian deaths -- the so-called "collateral damage."

In some cases, therefore, the use of drones is neither practical nor desirable even though it would be wonderful to avoid having to put any of our troops at greater risk.

We could nuke the mountains where Osama is suspected of hiding, too, in theory. But the collateral damage then would be even more outrageous. Still, it would prevent additional risks to our troops. Does that mean you favor the use of tactical nukes?

I might be supportive of the use of tactical nukes, depends.
I am in favor of the use of drones. At least some of the civilian deaths they cause are those that are providing shelter to our enemies. If we cause them enough pain, they will likely not want those guys around anymore.
War is hell, I think it is a piss-poor way to settle something. That said, once the decision is made to prosecute a war, we should do so with everything in our arsenal in a way that causes the most pain to the enemy and the least pain to our side.

I believe we DO have some obligation to avoid (as much as we can) the risks of collateral damage.

But my post is not really advocacy of one view over another.

I just wanted to point out that Countessa None-too-sharpa is talking out of both sides of her mouth and out of her ass, simultaneously.

I have no reason not to be critical of President Obama, as a rule, but even so, it's rather weird to criticize him for BOTH doing something too much and not doing that same thing enough.

 

[slackjawed]

Wow. You won't give that poor old President Obama ANY slack. He gets hammered by many for his allegedly undue reliance on the use of drones, but you criticize his somewhat restrained use of drones as being not used enough.

Drones are less likely to be as precise as the professional soldiers. The use of drones has received wide-spread condemnation from a variety of people -- including the Government of Pakistan -- largely to the extent that their use has caused a significant number of civilian deaths -- the so-called "collateral damage."

In some cases, therefore, the use of drones is neither practical nor desirable even though it would be wonderful to avoid having to put any of our troops at greater risk.

We could nuke the mountains where Osama is suspected of hiding, too, in theory. But the collateral damage then would be even more outrageous. Still, it would prevent additional risks to our troops. Does that mean you favor the use of tactical nukes?

I might be supportive of the use of tactical nukes, depends.
I am in favor of the use of drones. At least some of the civilian deaths they cause are those that are providing shelter to our enemies. If we cause them enough pain, they will likely not want those guys around anymore.
War is hell, I think it is a piss-poor way to settle something. That said, once the decision is made to prosecute a war, we should do so with everything in our arsenal in a way that causes the most pain to the enemy and the least pain to our side.

I believe we DO have some obligation to avoid (as much as we can) the risks of collateral damage.

But my post is not really advocacy of one view over another.

I just wanted to point out that Countessa None-too-sharpa is talking out of both sides of her mouth and out of her ass, simultaneously.

I have no reason not to be critical of President Obama, as a rule, but even so, it's rather weird to criticize him for BOTH doing something too much and not doing that same thing enough.

I can agree with that.

 

[deaddude]

You think putting troops in harms way rather than using drones is the way to go? Wow, you really are one dumb fuck bitch!

do you really think drones can completely replace troops in urban environments or densely packed terrain

Eventually yes. Now, no.

The tech can only get better, eventually it will match and even exceed the cost-effectiveness of human troops.

 

[Diuretic]

Why the fuck would anyone - even here - come down on Islam and Muslims and denigrate them when a nutbag group like AQ is ready to exploit that attitude? The broad-brush smearing of Islam and Muslims is guaranteed to give AQ a leg up and one reason is because Muslims understand that Islam isn't a religion of violence and Muslims are not people of violence. But if they get told different to what they know then AQ just might get a few more supporters.

Yeah, dont suggest Islam is violent or we might kill your approach.

Nice move, if this was a ball game.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Why the fuck would anyone - even here - come down on Islam and Muslims and denigrate them when a nutbag group like AQ is ready to exploit that attitude? The broad-brush smearing of Islam and Muslims is guaranteed to give AQ a leg up and one reason is because Muslims understand that Islam isn't a religion of violence and Muslims are not people of violence. But if they get told different to what they know then AQ just might get a few more supporters.

Well... Maybe I can clear this up for you.

As an American, we DARE AQ to recruit American Muslims... and we further DARE American Muslims to take up the fight with AQ against us.

BRING IT ON! As a great American once said...

We aren't concerned in the SLIGHTEST witht he feelings of Muslims; we aren't in the SLIGHTEST concerned with the sensitivity of Islam where some perception of a harsh word might send a Muslim to slink on the HE vest and trot it on down to the mall...

Odds are that AQ will find it's means to another 9-11, NOT thru Muslims residing in the US... but through Leftists residing in the US; and this more likely in the wake of the November elections.

Another one of Pubes' pearls ...

Fuck off ya ol' idiot. You're off the shitter yet again.

Oh my...


I think there's some confusion here... to the best of my knowledge, this thread is not an actual audition...

Although... I will say that you're really showin' all the right stuff for the newly available position as AQs token-white spokes-person...

Ya have the Fire in the Belly which is essential... and you've some discernible command of the English language... and that's all fundamental, bed-rock necessity...

Hmm... Do you own a camcorder and by chance, a Fed-ex account?

I'd say you should pop over to Al Jezeera and tell'em Osama sent ya... (never hurts to name drop...) But ya better hurry... there's no end to the Leftists who will be looking for that sweet little gig...

Best of luck to ya...

 

[Charles Stucker]

if they want to bankrupt us just get us into another war we can't pay for. al qaeda already added trillions on our debt and won't stop until we are insolvent

That has been their stated goal from the beginning, to bankrupt our country.

Does that make "Spend another excess Trilion" Obama one of their best allies?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

about the bold part, he campaigned on winding down iraq (in accordance with the deal bush setup) and sending more troops into afghanistan and putting a lot of pressure on pakistan. he has done all of these things, even considering his slowness and bs about taking his time to fufill the troop increase request.

agreed on the drones, they have caused more damage to the pakistan in 1 year than the last 6 combined.

The more drone use, in appropriate settings, the less we have to use feet on the ground, right? And drones can go where troops have difficulty.... one of those "Higher Ground" things, they have the advantage!

Wow. You won't give that poor old President Obama ANY slack. He gets hammered by many for his allegedly undue reliance on the use of drones, but you criticize his somewhat restrained use of drones as being not used enough.

Drones are less likely to be as precise as the professional soldiers. The use of drones has received wide-spread condemnation from a variety of people -- including the Government of Pakistan -- largely to the extent that their use has caused a significant number of civilian deaths -- the so-called "collateral damage."

In some cases, therefore, the use of drones is neither practical nor desirable even though it would be wonderful to avoid having to put any of our troops at greater risk.

We could nuke the mountains where Osama is suspected of hiding, too, in theory. But the collateral damage then would be even more outrageous. Still, it would prevent additional risks to our troops. Does that mean you favor the use of tactical nukes?

Oh it goes MUCH farther than the use of Drones... this administration is, in large measure, witholding from US forces and special operators, the use of air support and indirect fire...

For precisely the reasons you cite.

The fact is that the Muslims combatants are civilians... and where they're killed in combat, it's not uncommon that these combatants are being declared 'innocent civilians'... same goes for the elderly and woman; who bring with them their children; who are direct adherents to the enemy and who are erroneously declared 'innocents' when THEY realize injury or death... from combat to which they are WILLINGLY adjacent.

The extent to which US Forces are required to go to spare the life of THE ENEMY is beyond absurd and wholly unprecedented...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

if they want to bankrupt us just get us into another war we can't pay for. al qaeda already added trillions on our debt and won't stop until we are insolvent

LOL... the cost of excuting the US GWOT is negligible in comparison to the costs of socialism...

As it stands right now, between The New Deal and The Great Society and the ramifications of Keynsian Economics in general: Leftist policies ALL; the US has saddled itself with nearly 12 trillion in debt...

 

[blu]

if they want to bankrupt us just get us into another war we can't pay for. al qaeda already added trillions on our debt and won't stop until we are insolvent

LOL... the cost of excuting the US GWOT is negligible in comparison to the costs of socialism...

As it stands right now, between The New Deal and The Great Society and the ramifications of Keynsian Economics in general: Leftist policies ALL; the US has saddled itself with nearly 12 trillion in debt...

i didn't realzie they made such strong partisan glasses, unless of course wehn you say leftist you mean reagan, gwb, and the rest of your heroes

 

[bodecea]

if they want to bankrupt us just get us into another war we can't pay for. al qaeda already added trillions on our debt and won't stop until we are insolvent

LOL... the cost of excuting the US GWOT is negligible in comparison to the costs of socialism...

As it stands right now, between The New Deal and The Great Society and the ramifications of Keynsian Economics in general: Leftist policies ALL; the US has saddled itself with nearly 12 trillion in debt...

i didn't realzie they made such strong partisan glasses, unless of course wehn you say leftist you mean reagan, gwb, and the rest of your heroes

Exactly.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Well, it looks like the piece of shit that called for this is captured and will have the privilage of becoming a martyr for the cause. As Jos previously pointed out, he is in custody.

Officers: Pakistan arrests American-born al-Qaida - Yahoo! News



from the link;

"Gadahn has appeared in more than half a dozen al-Qaida videos, taunting and threatening the West and calling for its destruction. A U.S. court charged Gadahn with treason in 2006, making him the first American to face such a charge in more than 50 years."

Azzam the American is a silly motherfucker. I wonder why some of the most radical "converts" to Islam seem to be former Jews like Gadahn and Joseph Cohen?

Because fiction is more entertaining than truth.

 

[Kalam]

Well, it looks like the piece of shit that called for this is captured and will have the privilage of becoming a martyr for the cause. As Jos previously pointed out, he is in custody.

Officers: Pakistan arrests American-born al-Qaida - Yahoo! News



from the link;

"Gadahn has appeared in more than half a dozen al-Qaida videos, taunting and threatening the West and calling for its destruction. A U.S. court charged Gadahn with treason in 2006, making him the first American to face such a charge in more than 50 years."

Azzam the American is a silly motherfucker. I wonder why some of the most radical "converts" to Islam seem to be former Jews like Gadahn and Joseph Cohen?

Because fiction is more entertaining than truth.

I disagree; the few posts I've read of yours weren't the least bit entertaining. Now, did you have something you wanted to say?

 

[Diuretic]

if they want to bankrupt us just get us into another war we can't pay for. al qaeda already added trillions on our debt and won't stop until we are insolvent

LOL... the cost of excuting the US GWOT is negligible in comparison to the costs of socialism...

As it stands right now, between The New Deal and The Great Society and the ramifications of Keynsian Economics in general: Leftist policies ALL; the US has saddled itself with nearly 12 trillion in debt...

Keynes saved capitalism. He wasn't a leftist.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

if they want to bankrupt us just get us into another war we can't pay for. al qaeda already added trillions on our debt and won't stop until we are insolvent

LOL... the cost of excuting the US GWOT is negligible in comparison to the costs of socialism...

As it stands right now, between The New Deal and The Great Society and the ramifications of Keynsian Economics in general: Leftist policies ALL; the US has saddled itself with nearly 12 trillion in debt...

Keynes saved capitalism. He wasn't a leftist.

He was a progressive know it all, he didnt know shit. The market is self correcting .