happythoughts 0 #1 December 12, 2009 It has been stated that some terrorist attacks are based in retribution for US attacks in their countries. If we elevate the attacks in middle east countries, then that would create more terrorists according to that theory. Pakistan missile strike According to that theory, Obama is creating the terrorists of 5 years in the future. What is his plan? QuoteIntelligence officials have confirmed that the pace of attacks by armed unmanned aerial vehicles, conducted largely by the CIA, has increased during the Obama administration. The strikes have fanned anti-American sentiment in Pakistan because they have caused many civilian deaths. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #2 December 12, 2009 QuoteIt has been stated that some terrorist attacks are based in retribution for US attacks in their countries. If we elevate the attacks in middle east countries, then that would create more terrorists according to that theory. Pakistan missile strike According to that theory, Obama is creating the terrorists of 5 years in the future. What is his plan? QuoteIntelligence officials have confirmed that the pace of attacks by armed unmanned aerial vehicles, conducted largely by the CIA, has increased during the Obama administration. The strikes have fanned anti-American sentiment in Pakistan because they have caused many civilian deaths. Hey we were just trying to help him get to the party...... with the 72 virgins. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #3 December 12, 2009 There are people on this forum who have stated that when people of a country are attacked, it breeds resentment that leads to future terrorism. They are uniquely quiet when it is St. O who is signing off on the attacks, and even increasing their number. Won't this create future terrorists with a grudge? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #4 December 12, 2009 QuoteIf we elevate the attacks in middle east countries, then that would create more terrorists according to that theory. Consider the size of al Qaeda now compared to September 2001.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #5 December 12, 2009 QuoteQuoteIf we elevate the attacks in middle east countries, then that would create more terrorists according to that theory. Consider the size of al Qaeda now compared to September 2001. Meaning what? Larger? Smaller? During the Clinton admin, it bombed the WTC, and a few embassies in Africa, as well as other targets. So, I'm guessing you mean smaller? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #6 December 12, 2009 QuoteThere are people on this forum who have stated that when people of a country are attacked, it breeds resentment that leads to future terrorism. They are uniquely quiet when it is St. O who is signing off on the attacks, and even increasing their number. It was true under Carter. It was true under Reagan. It was true under GHW Bush. It was true under Clinton. It was true under GW Bush. It is still true under Obama. I don't know that anyone has been "uniquely quiet when it is St. O who is signing off on the attacks," although there are some who apparently have uniquely selective reading comprehension skills who only see criticisms that are made of GW Bush.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #7 December 12, 2009 QuoteQuoteThere are people on this forum who have stated that when people of a country are attacked, it breeds resentment that leads to future terrorism. They are uniquely quiet when it is St. O who is signing off on the attacks, and even increasing their number. It was true under Carter. It was true under Reagan. It was true under GHW Bush. It was true under Clinton. It was true under GW Bush. It is still true under Obama. I don't know that anyone has been "uniquely quiet when it is St. O who is signing off on the attacks," although there are some who apparently have uniquely selective reading comprehension skills who only see criticisms that are made of GW Bush. My only statement is that if another president escalated the war in a country that doesn't want the US there, there would be criticisms. The protestations were loud and constant then, so why not when O does it? I've heard nothing. It has always been a truism that attacks like these created problems in the future that should have been foreseen with the "magical crystal ball of politics". Loud protests. Shouldn't someone be reminding us of that right now? Here is my take on it. People have to deal with current military problems with current military solutions. If they find these guys, they should bomb them. This opinion has met by opposition from the futurists before, but that was a non-O president. "We can't criticize O, even though his plans and tactics are the same of others we criticized." Very telling. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #8 December 12, 2009 QuoteI've heard nothing. That demonstrates the point of my second paragraph nicely.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #9 December 13, 2009 QuoteI've heard nothing. Where are you looking? In April, I referenced David Kilcullen’s objections to use of drones during his House Armed Services testimony. Opinion piece from LA Times furthering the Kilcullen’s criticism: “U.S. drone attacks in Pakistan ‘backfiring,’ Congress told. Predator missile strikes aimed at Al Qaeda often go astray, enraging the people and threatening the Islamabad government, top military advisor testifies.” Similarly noted in September w/r/t discussion of something GEN McChrystal reportedly said regarding drones on a CBS 60 Minutes interview. (I never watched the interview so can’t comment.) Criticisms to recent decision: “Drone Strikes in Pakistan Ramp Up Despite Skepticism” As they note in their 4 December Foreign Policy piece, “About those civilian fatalities,” Peter Bergen & Katherine Tiedemann note they have long been critical of drone policy. E.g., a Bergen piece from CNN, dated lined 29 October: “The number of civilian deaths caused by the drones is an important issue, because in the charged political atmosphere of today's Pakistan, where anti-Americanism is rampant, the drone program is a particular cause of anger among those who see it as an infringement on Pakistan's sovereignty. “Drone strikes are an important tool to disrupt al Qaeda and Taliban operations and to kill the leaders of these organizations, but they also consistently kill Pakistani civilians, angering the population and prompting violent acts of revenge from the Pakistani Taliban.” One can find even stronger criticism in their June 2009 article from The New Republic “The Drone Wars: Are Predators our best weapon or worst enemy?”: “The drone war against Al Qaeda's leaders--and, increasingly, their Pakistani-based Taliban allies--has been waged with little public discussion or congressional investigation of its legality or efficacy, even though the offensive is essentially a program of assassination that kills not only militant leaders, but also civilians in a country that is, at least nominally, a close ally of the United States. Nor has there been a substantive debate about whether the gains of winnowing the ranks of Al Qaeda's leadership outweigh the fact that the inevitable civilian casualties are a superb recruiting tool for the Pakistani Taliban. Indeed, the drone strikes have pushed militants deeper into Pakistan and given them an excuse to strike the heartland of the country, further destabilizing the already rickety government in Islamabad. All of which raises the question of whether the drone campaign, however useful in the short term, might fatally undermine U.S. efforts to stabilize the region and to win the long-term war against Al Qaeda and its allies.” An article in Friday's NY Times on concerns of increasing radicalization of American Muslims, quoted Robert S. Leiken, ['who studies terrorism at the Nixon Center'] "...the American operations like drone strikes in Pakistan, are fueling radicalization at home, he said." QuoteVery telling. Of what? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #10 December 13, 2009 QuoteWhere are you looking? On this forum. I think that people should have one version of their opinions. The same people who criticize Tiger for his indiscretions will defend Bill Clintons as acceptable. There are people who posted that 9/11 was the result of US military attacks in the ME. Yet, when O increases the number of attacks in Pakistan (which, for some reason, Pakistan objects to), there is no similar response. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #11 December 15, 2009 Quote Quote Where are you looking? On this forum. I think that people should have one version of their opinions. There are people who posted that 9/11 was the result of US military attacks in the ME. Yet, when O increases the number of attacks in Pakistan (which, for some reason, Pakistan objects to), there is no similar response. I can speculate a number of reasons, ranging from the rational to something the more resembles unauthorized armchair psychology. (h/t to [JackC] for the link) Not sure much of the latter is particularly useful … but it does seem like something fairly easy to make a poll. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
