CIA chiefs face arrest over horrific evidence of bloody video-game sorties by drones

[rightwinger]

No, the alternative is leaving them alone, as I've already stated.

If you want to take that opinion you are perfectly allowed to

However, allowing terrorist cells to exist in safe havens without the fear of retalliation opens up the world to further terrorists attacks. I prefer my terrorists to be constantly in fear for their lives

And of course we know that bombing countries simply creates more terrorists, so your solution is just an endless cycle of violence.

Not necesarily true

Bombings in WWII killed hundreds of thousand of innocent people, destroyed civilian homes, caused untold injuries

We didn't see millions of terrorists after WWII

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If you want to take that opinion you are perfectly allowed to

However, allowing terrorist cells to exist in safe havens without the fear of retalliation opens up the world to further terrorists attacks. I prefer my terrorists to be constantly in fear for their lives

And of course we know that bombing countries simply creates more terrorists, so your solution is just an endless cycle of violence.

Not necesarily true

Bombings in WWII killed hundreds of thousand of innocent people, destroyed civilian homes, caused untold injuries

We didn't see millions of terrorists after WWII

WWII wasn't guerrilla warfare.

 

[rightwinger]

And of course we know that bombing countries simply creates more terrorists, so your solution is just an endless cycle of violence.

Not necesarily true

Bombings in WWII killed hundreds of thousand of innocent people, destroyed civilian homes, caused untold injuries

We didn't see millions of terrorists after WWII

WWII wasn't guerrilla warfare.

And your point is?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Not necesarily true

Bombings in WWII killed hundreds of thousand of innocent people, destroyed civilian homes, caused untold injuries

We didn't see millions of terrorists after WWII

WWII wasn't guerrilla warfare.

And your point is?

My point is that this is a different kind of warfare, with different technology, and different tactics. In WWII it was a war of governments against governments, where now we have governments against insurgents. In WWII, after we nuked them, there was nothing the Japanese could do about it. The government was defeated, and the average Japanese citizen had no means to retaliate. Not so now.

 

[rightwinger]

WWII wasn't guerrilla warfare.

And your point is?

My point is that this is a different kind of warfare, with different technology, and different tactics. In WWII it was a war of governments against governments, where now we have governments against insurgents. In WWII, after we nuked them, there was nothing the Japanese could do about it. The government was defeated, and the average Japanese citizen had no means to retaliate. Not so now.

You still had a military superpower dropping bombs on civilians over 200,000 civilian deaths in Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Japanese civilians had ample opportunity to retaliate against US occupying forces after WWII....They didn't

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And your point is?

My point is that this is a different kind of warfare, with different technology, and different tactics. In WWII it was a war of governments against governments, where now we have governments against insurgents. In WWII, after we nuked them, there was nothing the Japanese could do about it. The government was defeated, and the average Japanese citizen had no means to retaliate. Not so now.

You still had a military superpower dropping bombs on civilians over 200,000 civilian deaths in Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Japanese civilians had ample opportunity to retaliate against US occupying forces after WWII....They didn't

What could they have done? How could the civilians of Japan in 1945 have attacked the United States?

 

[rightwinger]

My point is that this is a different kind of warfare, with different technology, and different tactics. In WWII it was a war of governments against governments, where now we have governments against insurgents. In WWII, after we nuked them, there was nothing the Japanese could do about it. The government was defeated, and the average Japanese citizen had no means to retaliate. Not so now.

You still had a military superpower dropping bombs on civilians over 200,000 civilian deaths in Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Japanese civilians had ample opportunity to retaliate against US occupying forces after WWII....They didn't

What could they have done? How could the civilians of Japan in 1945 have attacked the United States?

What did they do in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Roadside bombs, IEDs, arson, sniper attacks....all were available to Japanese civilians to retalliate for the atomic bomb attacks that killed hundreds of thousands

The French did it when they were occupied

It didn't happen

 

[BlindBoo]

I just wonder how many ...... we've made

..... [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JGp7Meg42U]Hello, My name is Inigo Montoya.... - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Freemason9]

When there is no leadership, things at the lowest levels start to fall apart. We have playing around with drone strikes and we have whoring, drugs and alcoholism in the Secret Service.

The problem with political ideology that reveres "leadership" is that you end up with the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Castro.

Screw "leadership." Try to be individually responsible and participate actively in a social democracy.

 

[rightwinger]

I just wonder how many ...... we've made

..... Hello, My name is Inigo Montoya.... - YouTube

You only have to worry if you have six fingers on your right hand

 

[Connery]

It appears the CIA is undaunted in their desire for use of drones. They has requested more drones. Not a bad idea I would rather the unmanned drones than a manned operation.

"The CIA wants to add more armed drones to its fleet of such aircraft and is pressing the White House hard to grant its approval, according to a Washington Post report. Given that armed drones have been used by the CIA primarily in Pakistan and Yemen, the CIA’s attempt to add more vehicles to its fleet (up to 10 in its existing fleet of 30-35, also according to the Post) could have serious consequences for Pakistan..."

CIA

 

[Amazed]

My point is that this is a different kind of warfare, with different technology, and different tactics. In WWII it was a war of governments against governments, where now we have governments against insurgents. In WWII, after we nuked them, there was nothing the Japanese could do about it. The government was defeated, and the average Japanese citizen had no means to retaliate. Not so now.

You still had a military superpower dropping bombs on civilians over 200,000 civilian deaths in Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Japanese civilians had ample opportunity to retaliate against US occupying forces after WWII....They didn't

What could they have done? How could the civilians of Japan in 1945 have attacked the United States?

Who gives a shit?

it saved THOUSANDS of American lives that would have been lost in the invasion.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You still had a military superpower dropping bombs on civilians over 200,000 civilian deaths in Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Japanese civilians had ample opportunity to retaliate against US occupying forces after WWII....They didn't

What could they have done? How could the civilians of Japan in 1945 have attacked the United States?

Who gives a shit?

it saved THOUSANDS of American lives that would have been lost in the invasion.

Which is beside the point of what was being discussed.

 

[Amazed]

What could they have done? How could the civilians of Japan in 1945 have attacked the United States?

Who gives a shit?

it saved THOUSANDS of American lives that would have been lost in the invasion.

Which is beside the point of what was being discussed.

You brought up the civilian pop not me.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Who gives a shit?

it saved THOUSANDS of American lives that would have been lost in the invasion.

Which is beside the point of what was being discussed.

You brought up the civilian pop not me.

Yes, well you entered into the middle of a conversation and didn't understand what the conversation was about.