DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> "Let's stomp on Constitutional Amendments" thread
Pages:   ... ...
Showing posts 176 - 200 of 659, (reverse)
AuthorThread
06/02/2013 12:28:12 AM · #176
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Well, the GOAL isn't to "kill terrorists", is it? It's to stop acts of terror from happening. I don't actually see how "killing terrorists" as a national policy accomplishes that; the more you kill, the more you breed, kind of like sowing the dragon's teeth...


Funny you should use that analogy. It was used in the same context in Strategy,Terrorist Threats & Attacks — by Philip J. Palin on June 10, 2010

"Each one killed by a drone plants at least one dragon’s tooth. Each woman killed plants three or four and a child even more. If we are careful and have chosen well, the drone also kills a dragon."

We know that killing will sew dragon's teeth, but there were skeletons jumping out of the ground long before the first drone strike. Militant Islam, like any fundamentalist revolutionary group needs a target to unite the discontent, to call their recruits to the banner, some Titan to topple. While past actions by our country have certainly painted a target on our chests, there is no action we can take to remove that target. Any action we take will be more or less provocative, the question is does killing those leaders training and financing future killers create more grim warriors than are struck down by our actions?
06/02/2013 01:28:43 AM · #177
Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Well, the GOAL isn't to "kill terrorists", is it? It's to stop acts of terror from happening. I don't actually see how "killing terrorists" as a national policy accomplishes that; the more you kill, the more you breed, kind of like sowing the dragon's teeth...


Funny you should use that analogy. It was used in the same context in Strategy,Terrorist Threats & Attacks — by Philip J. Palin on June 10, 2010

"Each one killed by a drone plants at least one dragon’s tooth. Each woman killed plants three or four and a child even more. If we are careful and have chosen well, the drone also kills a dragon."

We know that killing will sew dragon's teeth, but there were skeletons jumping out of the ground long before the first drone strike. Militant Islam, like any fundamentalist revolutionary group needs a target to unite the discontent, to call their recruits to the banner, some Titan to topple. While past actions by our country have certainly painted a target on our chests, there is no action we can take to remove that target. Any action we take will be more or less provocative, the question is does killing those leaders training and financing future killers create more grim warriors than are struck down by our actions?


And maybe if the warts on our snout grows large enough it will shield our eyes from the abyss. One can only hope.
06/02/2013 09:19:57 AM · #178
I know i sound like a commie but the solution is economics not drones. Terrorism is always political, not religious. Religion is water, holding the shape of its container, justifying any action. The resource pool for terrorism are hungry people unsafe in their own homes. Change those conditions, and terrorism dries up.
06/02/2013 10:31:09 AM · #179
Originally posted by Bear_Music:


Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Not sure what that means, but you're much, MUCH older than I thought.

Reference Greek mythology, Jason and the Argonauts, Cadmus and Thebes[...]


Old acquaintances of yours I assume? ;)

Message edited by author 2013-06-02 10:32:45.
06/02/2013 12:12:46 PM · #180
Originally posted by DrAchoo:



I believe by the waning years of my life China will be the superpower in the world and I hate to set precedents we will be helpless to stop when that day comes.


Kinda like the fear of Hell huh? Play nice just in case.

Helpless to stop them you say... you are familiar of course with the destructive capabilities of your country's military might.

Ray
06/02/2013 12:38:33 PM · #181
Originally posted by posthumous:

I know i sound like a commie but the solution is economics not drones. Terrorism is always political, not religious. Religion is water, holding the shape of its container, justifying any action. The resource pool for terrorism are hungry people unsafe in their own homes. Change those conditions, and terrorism dries up.


I agree with you. Funny thing, my grandfather used to call me a communist all the time when I was a kid for saying things like this. Feed and house the world, no more angry people, no more war. He also called me that for not liking baseball. LOL!
06/02/2013 05:16:20 PM · #182
Originally posted by DrAchoo:



What does the UN matter?


I seem to recall that the USA has made a very specific reference to the UN charter when dealing with the use of drone in another country.

"In defense of sovereignty violations, American officials contend that
the United States is exercising its inherent right to self-defense under
Article 51 of the United Nations (UN) charter by using lethal force
when a targeted country is unable or unwilling to counter imminent
and significant threats."

You might find the following a bit surprising as it came from a United Nations Human Rights Investigator:

"On 2 June 2010 Alston's team released a report on its investigation into the drone strikes, criticizing the United States for being "the most prolific user of targeted killings" in the world. Alston, however, acknowledged that the drone attacks may be justified under the right to self-defense. He called on the US to be more open about the program. Alston's report was submitted to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights the following day."

Considering that the UN has to date remained relatively silent on the matter would, in some circles, speak volumes.

Ray

Message edited by author 2013-06-02 17:19:39.
06/02/2013 11:35:52 PM · #183
Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:



What does the UN matter?


I seem to recall that the USA has made a very specific reference to the UN charter when dealing with the use of drone in another country.

"In defense of sovereignty violations, American officials contend that
the United States is exercising its inherent right to self-defense under
Article 51 of the United Nations (UN) charter by using lethal force
when a targeted country is unable or unwilling to counter imminent
and significant threats."

You might find the following a bit surprising as it came from a United Nations Human Rights Investigator:

"On 2 June 2010 Alston's team released a report on its investigation into the drone strikes, criticizing the United States for being "the most prolific user of targeted killings" in the world. Alston, however, acknowledged that the drone attacks may be justified under the right to self-defense. He called on the US to be more open about the program. Alston's report was submitted to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights the following day."

Considering that the UN has to date remained relatively silent on the matter would, in some circles, speak volumes.

Ray


Actually, the UN launched an investigation on drone use this past January and plans to conclude later this year.

UN: Pakistan 'does not sanction' US drone strikes
International community must heed Pakistan's concerns over drones, says UN expert

ETA: Self defense? Surely that's a typo. You mean self offense, right?

Message edited by author 2013-06-02 23:49:39.
06/03/2013 05:56:41 AM · #184
Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:



What does the UN matter?


I seem to recall that the USA has made a very specific reference to the UN charter when dealing with the use of drone in another country.

"In defense of sovereignty violations, American officials contend that
the United States is exercising its inherent right to self-defense under
Article 51 of the United Nations (UN) charter by using lethal force
when a targeted country is unable or unwilling to counter imminent
and significant threats."

You might find the following a bit surprising as it came from a United Nations Human Rights Investigator:

"On 2 June 2010 Alston's team released a report on its investigation into the drone strikes, criticizing the United States for being "the most prolific user of targeted killings" in the world. Alston, however, acknowledged that the drone attacks may be justified under the right to self-defense. He called on the US to be more open about the program. Alston's report was submitted to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights the following day."

Considering that the UN has to date remained relatively silent on the matter would, in some circles, speak volumes.

Ray


Actually, the UN launched an investigation on drone use this past January and plans to conclude later this year.

UN: Pakistan 'does not sanction' US drone strikes
International community must heed Pakistan's concerns over drones, says UN expert

ETA: Self defense? Surely that's a typo. You mean self offense, right?


Not at all... take the time to read Article 51 which is what the USA is using as a justification.

You might also be interested in the following:

Special rapporteurs are appointed by the UN Human Rights Council to examine and report back on a country situation or a specific human rights theme. The positions are honorary and the experts are not UN staff, nor are they paid for their work.

I guess we will have to wait and see.

Ray
06/03/2013 08:55:23 AM · #185
Originally posted by posthumous:

I know i sound like a commie but the solution is economics not drones. Terrorism is always political, not religious. Religion is water, holding the shape of its container, justifying any action. The resource pool for terrorism are hungry people unsafe in their own homes. Change those conditions, and terrorism dries up.


Of course this is true, but when attacked, we whip ourselves up into a patriotic fervor and keep calling terrorism
a "senseless act" and brand terrorists as evil incarnate.

The problem with that is that it has become unpatriotic and verboten to possibly suggest that we did something to provoke these acts of violence against us. And then, we squander vast amounts of blood and treasure which quite possibly keeps up safe short term, but foments islamic revolutions- and does nothing to address the underlying concerns, Oil and Israel.

the Islamic middle eastern/near middle eastern terrorists do not ideologically hate us for our freedom, they dislike the exploitation and unsettling effect we have in their countries and regions. There are many other piss poor third world areas that are not actively trying to attack us, at least for now.
06/03/2013 11:11:11 AM · #186
Originally posted by blindjustice:

the Islamic middle eastern/near middle eastern terrorists do not ideologically hate us for our freedom, they dislike the exploitation and unsettling effect we have in their countries and regions. There are many other piss poor third world areas that are not actively trying to attack us, at least for now.


yeah, I agree. it's our active role in their misery.
06/03/2013 11:23:06 AM · #187
Originally posted by posthumous:

I know i sound like a commie but the solution is economics not drones. Terrorism is always political, not religious. Religion is water, holding the shape of its container, justifying any action. The resource pool for terrorism are hungry people unsafe in their own homes. Change those conditions, and terrorism dries up.


Originally posted by blindjustice:

Of course this is true, but when attacked, we whip ourselves up into a patriotic fervor and keep calling terrorism
a "senseless act" and brand terrorists as evil incarnate.

The problem with that is that it has become unpatriotic and verboten to possibly suggest that we did something to provoke these acts of violence against us. And then, we squander vast amounts of blood and treasure which quite possibly keeps up safe short term, but foments islamic revolutions- and does nothing to address the underlying concerns, Oil and Israel.

the Islamic middle eastern/near middle eastern terrorists do not ideologically hate us for our freedom, they dislike the exploitation and unsettling effect we have in their countries and regions. There are many other piss poor third world areas that are not actively trying to attack us, at least for now.


I agree. As I recall, the Saudis who flew the planes on 9/11 were not hungry people unsafe in their homes. They were relatively well educated and had economic opportunity, so obviously there was some motivation other than poverty at work there.
06/06/2013 11:42:00 AM · #188
Yet another article saying that Obama's policies are not really that much different than W's in the War on Terror...

Obama administration defends collecting Verizon phone data

Message edited by author 2013-06-06 11:42:18.
06/06/2013 12:39:16 PM · #189
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

I agree. As I recall, the Saudis who flew the planes on 9/11 were not hungry people unsafe in their homes. They were relatively well educated and had economic opportunity, so obviously there was some motivation other than poverty at work there.


These are the 9/11 19, chopped out of Wikipedia. Most of them are not poor and hungry, just like many Communists in Europe were not poor and hungry, just like war protestors are not in the war they protest. They were inspired by poverty and hunger around them, and the history of colonialism that fostered those conditions. As well as not being a poor group, this is also not a very religious group... but it is a very political group.

Wail al-Shehri and his younger brother Waleed were from Khamis Mushait in the Asir province, which is an impoverished area in southwestern Saudi Arabia, along the Yemeni border.
Ahmed al-Nami, Shehri and Omari also came from Asir Province.

Khalid al-Mihdhar was born in Mecca, Saudi Arabia to a prominent family, related to the Quraysh tribe of Mecca.

Nawaf and Salem were born in Mecca in Saudi Arabia to Muhammad Salim al-Hazmi, a grocer.

Atta was born in Kafr el-Sheikh, located in Egypt's Nile delta region. His father, Mohamed el-Amir Awad el-Sayed Atta, was a lawyer, educated in both sharia and civil law. His mother, Bouthayna Mohamed Mustapha Sheraqi, came from a wealthy farming and trading family and was also educated.

A native of the Saudi Arabian city of Riyadh, Suqami was a law student at the King Saud University.

Shehhi was born in Ras al-Khaimah, in the United Arab Emirates, to a Muslim cleric who died in 1997. He was described as a quiet and devout Muslim. After graduating from high school in 1995, Shehhi enlisted in the Emirati military and received a half a year of basic training before he was admitted into a military scholarship program that allowed him to continue his education in Germany.

An Imam, Ghamdi was from the al Bahah Province of Saudi Arabia, a province in the south west of Saudi Arabia. It is the capital of Al Bahah Province nestled between the resorts of Mecca and Abha, Al Bahah is one of the Kingdom’s prime tourist attractions. Ghamdi shared the same tribal affiliation with fellow hijackers Saeed al-Ghamdi, Hamza al-Ghamdi, and Ahmed al-Haznawi. This group is noted as being some of the more religiously observant of the hijackers, and they are thought to have met each other some time in 1999.

Jarrah was born in Mazraa, Lebanon, to a wealthy family. His parents were nominally Muslim Sunnis, although they lived a secular lifestyle. When he was seven years old, Israel invaded southern Lebanon, a fact he referred to later in life. His parents sent him to a Catholic school in Beirut, La Sagesse, where he volunteered at a camp for disabled children and helped run an anti-drug program.

Banihammad was from Khor Fakkan in the United Arab Emirates and was born to Muhammad Fayez Banihammad, a school principal. He married into the family of the Emirati singer, Hussain Al Jasmi.

Hanjour was the fourth of seven children, born to a food-supply businessman in Ta’if, Saudi Arabia, near Mecca. During his youth, Hanjour wanted to drop out of school to become a flight attendant, although his brother Abdulrahman discouraged this route, and tried to help him focus on his studies.

Moqed was a law student from the small town of Al-Nakhil, Saudi Arabia (west of Medina), studying at King Fahd University's Faculty of Administration and Economics.
06/06/2013 01:12:22 PM · #190
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Yet another article saying that Obama's policies are not really that much different than W's in the War on Terror...

Obama administration defends collecting Verizon phone data


Doesn't this dis-affirm your suspicion regarding the lack of coverage of Obama's administration, allegedly as bellicose and freedom usurping as W's?
06/06/2013 01:22:16 PM · #191
Originally posted by blindjustice:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Yet another article saying that Obama's policies are not really that much different than W's in the War on Terror...

Obama administration defends collecting Verizon phone data


Doesn't this dis-affirm your suspicion regarding the lack of coverage of Obama's administration, allegedly as bellicose and freedom usurping as W's?


Yes. The press does seem up in arms over this one, although the Google news count is currently only 638 sources. Really big stories are in the thousands of sources.

Message edited by author 2013-06-06 13:24:00.
06/06/2013 05:33:26 PM · #192
This is the front page of the Huffington Post right now... //www.huffingtonpost.com/

Scary.
06/06/2013 05:36:38 PM · #193
The simple fact that this is even news baffles me.

We've known about this for a long time, it's not like it was some big secret - you can be quite certain they're up to far more interesting things in certain sectors - this is just SOP.
06/06/2013 05:44:50 PM · #194
Originally posted by Cory:

The simple fact that this is even news baffles me.

We've known about this for a long time, it's not like it was some big secret - you can be quite certain they're up to far more interesting things in certain sectors - this is just SOP.


It's only news because the "Liberals" feel betrayed right now. Which is why you see liberal/democratic sites currently trashing him. I've been saying from the get go that Obama is not a Liberal. He's a middle of the road type guy who actually leans to the right. He's not fighting for people's rights. He's not fighting for the poor or the elderly. I would go as far as to classify him as a closet Republican. He's as out of touch with the average American as Bush was (or any politician for that matter). What makes it kind of funny is when he proposes something that's Republican in nature, and "Joe Republican" starts screaming "LIBERAL". I don't think people have a clue anymore. I voted for him because the alternative was way worse. I know a lot of people who would tell you the same.
06/06/2013 06:15:22 PM · #195
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Yet another article saying that Obama's policies are not really that much different than W's in the War on Terror...

Obama administration defends collecting Verizon phone data


I hate to break the news to you Doc, but that type of behaviour precedes even GWB.

Ray
06/06/2013 06:23:17 PM · #196
Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Yet another article saying that Obama's policies are not really that much different than W's in the War on Terror...

Obama administration defends collecting Verizon phone data


I hate to break the news to you Doc, but that type of behaviour precedes even GWB.

Ray


Citation?
06/06/2013 08:13:59 PM · #197
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

[quote=DrAchoo] Yet another article saying that Obama's policies are not really that much different than W's in the War on Terror...

Obama administration defends collecting Verizon phone data


I hate to break the news to you Doc, but that type of behaviour precedes even GWB.

Ray


Citation?

You could look Here
and pay particular attention to the following:

FISA exclusivity provision
" 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(f) provides in relevant part that "the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance, as defined in 50 U.S.C. § 1801(f)... and the intercept of domestic [communications] may be conducted."

While it remains true that what has been undertaken in the current and other similar undertakings does not adhere to the regulations set forth in this section, it does nonetheless demonstrate that the interception of communications is not something new.

Ray

Message edited by author 2013-06-06 20:19:21.
06/06/2013 08:59:13 PM · #198
Oh, well, duh. Wiretapping has been around for a long time. "Wiretapping" a hundred million people at once? Not so much...
06/06/2013 09:05:23 PM · #199
Its a wide wide net. Thank Jesus its not just tea party groups!

In reality, they would get more from monitoring facebook accounts.
06/06/2013 09:34:08 PM · #200
Originally posted by blindjustice:

In reality, they would get more from monitoring facebook accounts.

I'm sure they are ...
Pages:   ... ...
Current Server Time: 06/25/2019 03:46:17 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2019 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 06/25/2019 03:46:17 AM EDT.