Obama's kill list

[Charitystar]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/wo...pagewanted=all
Found it very funny

Or watch a video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRnpC...YjQ&playnext=2

[Soisoisoi]

I'm getting Problem loading page - Server can't be found for the first link. :|

[Kalyyn]

President Obama has some of the world's most experienced military and security experts advising him at all times. If they determine that somebody needs to die for America, then I can accept that. Sure, Obama is the one authorizing the targets, but he's not making the judgments alone.

If a person is in America, then I agree that due process should be required. However, for targets around the globe, due process does 2 things: It publicly broadcasts a "Get the fuck out of wherever you are" alarm to the potential target, and gives them ample time to go into hiding. By the time anyone was convicted under US law, they would have already become infinitely harder to find and kill.

You know what I'd do if I were an enemy of America who was being reviewed for assassination? I'd go to the most heavily populated civilian area I could find and surround myself with innocent people. I'd make sure that to kill me, America would have to take out hundreds of bystanders in the process. Now why would anyone want to give me that opportunity?

[Charitystar]

Fixed the link should be okay now.

[TofuBeast]

Also, the Obama administration now defines a "Militant" as any man of military age. That way they can say the civilian death toll is lower.

The guy campaigns against Bush's foreign policy and his use of torture, and then decides to just use drones to kill them all instead of even putting them on trial at all. I don't know how any self-respecting liberal can like him. He's pretty much George W. 2.

All this shit is doing is making people all over the world hate America more. You think that 17 year old girl's family is going to be liking the U.S. much after an American hellfire missile landed on her? They might even pick up an AK and go join Al Qaeda.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...I0U_print.html

[Grizzly Willy]

Also, the Obama administration now defines a "Militant" as any man of military age. That way they can say the civilian death toll is lower.

The guy campaigns against Bush's foreign policy and his use of torture, and then decides to just use drones to kill them all instead of even putting them on trial at all. I don't know how any self-respecting liberal can like him. He's pretty much George W. 2.

All this shit is doing is making people all over the world hate America more. You think that 17 year old girl's family is going to be liking the U.S. much after an American hellfire missile landed on her? They might even pick up an AK and go join Al Qaeda.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...I0U_print.html

While I would suggest this to go in the U.S. Presidential Race: Democrat thread, I have to say that this is just another thing that pushes me away from wanting to vote this November. Both Obama and Romney are incompetent for the position they're running for. And no, I don't support Ron Paul, either.

[Deleted]

Such is American Military tactics. Drone strikes are an improvement from the shock and awe tactics usually employed however.

[Charitystar]

While I would suggest this to go in the U.S. Presidential Race: Democrat thread, I have to say that this is just another thing that pushes me away from wanting to vote this November. Both Obama and Romney are incompetent for the position they're running for. And no, I don't support Ron Paul, either.

Ron Paul can go very extreme at most times, still better then the other GOP candidates in my opinion.

[Teriz]

All this shit is doing is making people all over the world hate America more. You think that 17 year old girl's family is going to be liking the U.S. much after an American hellfire missile landed on her? They might even pick up an AK and go join Al Qaeda.

Then she'll get wasted next, and no one will give two shits about her burning corpse.

The lesson here is that if you feel that you're being oppressed, terrorism isn't the way to go about bringing meaningful change to your society.

[ptwonline]

It really should not be done this way. I understand the reality and the extreme difficulties in fighting the war on terror without resorting to full invasions, and I do fully believe that Obama and his advisors are doing the best they can to make sure they are being responsible in using this extreme power. But this sort of power just screams to be abused willingly or else by willing dupes, and innocents could be deliberately targeted for assassination with no oversight or control. Everyone should be troubled by this.

[08nolanni]

Then she'll get wasted next, and no one will give two shits about her burning corpse.

The lesson here is that if you feel that you're being oppressed, terrorism isn't the way to go about bringing meaningful change to your society.

This guys got the right mindset,

[foofymoonkin]

I think they are letting people know on purpose. Especially when they said there were American Citizens on that list.

Apparently, some citizens are betraying their country (Which some have) and have joined against them. Should they be military with secrets or availability to weapons, more people could be harmed then saved. I'm fine with the list.

[mistuhbull]

You know what I'd do if I were an enemy of America who was being reviewed for assassination? I'd go to the most heavily populated civilian area I could find and surround myself with innocent people. I'd make sure that to kill me, America would have to take out hundreds of bystanders in the process. Now why would anyone want to give me that opportunity?

I see you've read the PLO handbook

[DarkSoul]

The way I see it, we have three options:

1: Create a list of high-priority targets, some of which might make people uncomfortable about eliminating for one reason or another even though said targets have demonstrated that they are a threat to innocent American lives, and eliminate those targets as efficiently as possible with minimal collateral damage (such as civilian deaths).

2: Send our troops in after these targets, brute-forcing our way in and giving the targets ample opportunity to defend themselves or take others out with them, and giving us no control whatsoever over whether those others are innocent bystanders or not. Our troops die, innocent civilians die, and there's nothing we can do about it.

3: Keep our proverbial heads in the sand, pretend none of this is happening, and just deal with the terrorist attacks after they happen to what are virtually guaranteed to be innocent targets since that's how terrorism works.

Pick one.

I'm fine with this list, btw, and I respect anyone in charge that essentially says "You are killing these people by my order. If anyone takes the heat over it, it will be me."

Oh and as far as the whole "I'll surround myself with civilians and make sure they have to kill a bunch of innocent people to get to me." With option 2, they would. With option 1, a fraction of those innocents would die if any, and the target won't have as much opportunity to take innocents out with them if they don't know the strike is coming. If troops were sent after a person like this they'd have a chance to enact this sort of contingency. A drone strike doesn't give that chance.

[tenzing21]

The laws of warfare are clear- waging irregular or asymmetrical warfare is a crime against humanity, punishable by post haste execution in the field.

[Taliesyn]

The laws of warfare are clear- waging irregular or asymmetrical warfare is a crime against humanity, punishable by post haste execution in the field.

Do you even know what asymmetrical warfare is? Based on the above, I'd say no.

[Deleted]

If a person is in America, then I agree that due process should be required. However, for targets around the globe, due process does 2 things: It publicly broadcasts a "Get the fuck out of wherever you are" alarm to the potential target, and gives them ample time to go into hiding. By the time anyone was convicted under US law, they would have already become infinitely harder to find and kill.

So you just wait until the US citizen goes on vacation or otherwise travels abroad and you kill him. GG.

[Kalyyn]

So you just wait until the US citizen goes on vacation or otherwise travels abroad and you kill him. GG.

Yes, you are correct.

[goobernoob]

It really should not be done this way. I understand the reality and the extreme difficulties in fighting the war on terror without resorting to full invasions, and I do fully believe that Obama and his advisors are doing the best they can to make sure they are being responsible in using this extreme power. But this sort of power just screams to be abused willingly or else by willing dupes, and innocents could be deliberately targeted for assassination with no oversight or control. Everyone should be troubled by this.

I doubt it's a power that every president didn't already have through more subtle methods, this just means he doesn't need a covert asset on the ground
if you don't trust the people of your country to avoid voting for someone who would use this kind of power on your avg joe without good reasoning I don't know what to tell you.
just another reason to be careful who you vote into office

edit: awww, i lost my grunt title =(

[lavafoxx]

The lesson here is that if you feel that you're being oppressed, terrorism isn't the way to go about bringing meaningful change to your society.

actually, history has shown that violence is usually the only way to get things changed. and terrorism is strictly a point of view, for example: the Boston tea party.