don’t let anyone tell you that the USA doesn’t make anything anymore because nobody does War like we do, i.e., for profit.

It’s our number one export.

Jon Walker “of firedoglake” is gonna be on democracynow this morning.

So U.S. drone attacks are the cause of terrorist attacks, so the U.S. will do more drone attacks. Makes sense to me.

Since the shoe bomber, everyone has had to take their shoes off while going through security. Now that we’ve also had an attempted underwear bomber, will everyone have to take their underwear off and run it through the scanner? This idiocy is one reason I have refused to fly since 9/11, and have been urging everyone I know not to fly either. It’s all too reminiscent to me of those grainy B&W documentaries we watched in high school of Jews and gypsies and others being herded into boxcars to be hauled off to concentration camps.

Civilian deaths owing to the U.S. war in Afghanistan are up 10% under O. That’ll make ‘em love us better.

Yes, and Karzai is sending out a team to check on the civilian deaths. It’s past time to get the hell out of there.

No. No. No. Those drone attacks were “preventive.” Think how many more attempts there would have been without them.

Now that’s no way for a puppet to act. Where is his gratitude?

Yes, all those attacks that didn’t occur are in the same closet as all the jobs that O saved.

The usual statistics put entertainment as our biggest export. Weapons are only in second second place. Of course the normal calculations don’t take into account the cost of advertising. Using troops and mercenaries to promote the products and the associated investment costs, costs to purchase politicians and such probably do push the killing for defense market quite a bit higher.

If we all just hide in the basement until all of the people in the world who could do harm are rounded up everything will be fine.

Be afwaid, very afwaid. – Tweety

Absolutely, once we’ve eliminated all of these “weddings” America will be safe once more.

DIE HARD 2010: The Resurrection

Jesus is back and he’s pissed.

Everybody know that those wedding parties are just disguised terrorist training camps. Really.

The war on terror has become the war on wedding parties.

So, I go to the doctor (quick before my insurance gets too expensive) and say Doc, when I do this, it hurts. Doc says Don’t do that.
But, I just can’t help myself.

But, try as they might, they can’t fool our intelligence services.

There must be a procedure he could charge you for.

I went through one of those full-body screening devices last week in the Indianapolis airport. I still had to be patted down (I have an artificial knee, and I always get wanded and patted down). I didn’t realize until the news items this week exactly what sort of device it was.

And of course, as the expert on Rachel last night said, basing our security screenings on what attempted terrorists have tried in the past doesn’t keep us safer, because they just figure out an approach we haven’t prepared for.

Say what?

OMG: It was Bush’s fault: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/men-believed-northwest-airlines-plot-set-free/story?id=9434065&page=2

Real life case. When my son got sun poisoning on his face while skiing (I hadn’t been careful enough with the sun screen), the doc said we should stop skiing.

That’s why they’re called “intelligence.”

I saw that. No wonder we haven’t been hearing from Cheney on this.

Mornin’, BT, pups

Obama wouldn’t make a pimple on a progressive’s ass.

He’s a neoliberal. War comes easy to these fools. It’s a money maker for the ruling elites and they’re not the ones who have to fight.

The sad thing is that this will give Obama that much more reason and excuse for indefinite detention.

“This was a serious reminder of the dangers we face and of the nature of those who threaten our homeland,”

does he NOT know how OFFENSIVE that word is?

is he a TOTAL frigging moron or just an apprentice of bush, as if the two are mutually exclusive

this guy is PISSING me off big time`

Glenn Greenwald’s hypothesis is that the purpose of changing parties at the top is to convince the other side to go along with existing policies. That’s what O means by bipartisanship. Hypothesis certainly fits the evidence.

Given the tendency to incarcerate as cruelly as possible whenever possible my take is that when you do harm and then hope that the people you mistreated will not want revenge later on you’re better off cutting back on the drugs. Extended psychological torture probably does not go away very quickly.

Being accused does not make you guilty. Being accused, tortured and then let go does not make you grateful.

elevendyleven level chess doncha know

Oh, probably. Just wondering when folks will figure out why people want to kill us.
To me the thing that jumped out from the quote of the president was this…
but those who would slaughter innocent men, women and children must know that the United States Most Countries will do more than simply strengthen our defenses
Why wouldn’t any other country do the same? I don’t think I’m the one who needs a procedure.

Ding. Missed in Holder’s announcement that KSM will be tried in NYC was the fate of all the others who will be tried in kangaroo courts or be detained with no legal process.

Glenn Greenwald’s hypothesis is that the purpose of changing parties at the top is to convince the other side to go along with existing policies

is glenn a genous or what?

that is SO on the money and that post needs to be linked far and wide in the libersphere

Jon Walker coming up on democracynow. Will argue to kill the bill.

Made sense to me.

Holy cow. I’m wondering if you got a new doctor.
Sadly, believable.

Amy Goodman had a great summary sentence of Walker’s position.

I can’t remember anymore. I think that doc was one in a practice, and we usually saw one of the others.

Lying in bed this morning,
it occurred to me that Obama is America’s version of Iran’s Khatami :
a completely feckless “reformer” who laid the groundwork
for an even worse regime than the one that preceeded him.

If you peruse the righty hangouts you will see that this strategy is a losing proposition. This is tribal warfare and Obama is just a darker Bill Clinton as far as most of them are concerned. Look how well Bills move to the right turned out.

The point is not to convince the wingnuts. The point of electing a D is to convince the lefties to go along with existing policies, like war, torture, indefinite detention, govt by corporations, etc.

Walker’s up on democracynow.

is it on tv? which station?

“those who would slaughter innocent men, women, and children … ”

oh, just fuck.

what the hell are you all talking about? seriously…

OK I found it. He said “nukyeler”.

I just had a phone call from a friend who was advised to purchase meds from Israel Meds??? Never heard of this place…what the hell, Canada is not allowed but Israel Meds is?

I watch it on democracynow.org. I have it open on another window.

Pay attention much?

Thanks, I’ve got it now.

Looks like the tea partiers are thieving from their own.

The ‘lil scamps.

Wendell Potter is still under the delusion that Ds are on the left side of the political ledger.

no, seriously. it is all very inside. “opaque” is the word, i believe.

Yeah. To me the point is why should only the right be able to hold the process hostage with the filibuster? Why can’t the left do the same thing?

Because, as Greenwald pointed out, the purpose of having Ds in charge is to convince D voters to go along with the old policies.

It’s not opaque if one is paying attention to what’s going on in the world and the US govt’s policies towards “terrorists.” The current topic is the US reaction to the Nigerian would-be bomber and the use of cruise missiles and drones to “fight terrorism.” We’re killing many more civilians than “bad guys.” We have a habit of blowing up wedding parties in Irak and Afghanistan. Nothing inside or opaque about it.

Also how policies don’t change when different parties are in charge.

The Ds were not even willing/able to filibuster the appointments of Roberts and Alito. Lack of party discipline.

WHAT is “inside” and “opaque”? This comment makes no sense without a context.

Interesting idea.

If this is one of the plans I’d have to grade it an A-. Certainly explains the new barrage of stories about the mean old extremists making the liberals sad. Goes along with the push from Democrats to respect their authorities as well.

When the Washington Post steps in to protect Obama from the cruel forces of verbal disagreement you know you’re being had.

Yeah. Made me cringe. It always surprises me how many otherwise intelligent people say “nukyuler.”

Here

It requires quite a bit of background/history to follow, but you’ll pick it up quickly, especially if you google on some of the points.

As you might have already noticed, a lot of the folks here read Glenn Greenwald on a daily basis, which provides a lot of context too.

Ding. Watch it unfold.

What specifically are you wondering about?

gayle, I believe “jargon” may be the word you’re looking for. It takes a while to catch on to the terms and abbreviations we use here. Just keep coming back, you’ll pick it up. And most of the people here are welcoming to new readers, so hang in there.

Off to swim in the great capitalist cesspool.

US KIA Irak: 4,371

US KIA Afghanistan: 940

Iraki and Afghan casualties: estimates vary to over 1M

US MBS 2009: 44,888

Be good to yourselves, and all other living things

Namaste

this just SUCKS, SUCKS, jesus!

i read some cri de coeur post somewhere, saying they feel more abandoned and helpless than even during 8 years of bushcoup – me too

we did all this for President Joe Lieberman?!! it appears we did.

GAAAAHHHH!

Two-thirds back to the consulting firm? Ha. I say, Ha!

Yeah, I remember that. That’s another reason to kill the filibuster– it works against progressives. It gives an automatic advantage to the right, where they tend to march in lock step.

Hey, Molly. How did your concert go? If you wrote a diary, I missed it.

Little mini war between the teabagging factions.

Agreed. I apologize if I sounded snappish. Gayle, it helps also if you use the Reply button in the lower right corner of the comment box, so we can have a context for your comment (if you are responding to an earlier comment).

And yes, if you are new here, welcome to the Lake, and please ask questions. It is a very welcoming place and there are no “dumb” questions. We do sometimes fall into a jargon trap that must be confusing to new visitors.

Yup, yup, yup.
When I heard this kneejerk war response, I thought, they’re gonna get US into WWIII.
I hope not, but that’s what my first reaction was.

The way the western powers have been treating Nigeria ( I know they say he’s from Yemen…but) it’s a wonder they haven’t done anything before this.

Rachel Maddow got the proverbial “MEMO” from the Rahm censorship office during her Holiday WH invite a month or so back. She now has join the rest of the lobotomized Big Media membership controlled by the administration.

Ms. Maddow has Sold-Out.

And you can only stay on the air so long repeating stories on Rwanda, C Street and avoiding speaking about this administrations similarities with the Bush administration; and that RahmObama is NOT doing what he campaigned on.

Unlike talking about housing or economics this topic seems fairly self-explanatory. Perhaps you mean that you don’t accept the premises? Drones, underwear bombs, misdirection, terrorists, fear, revenge, war. Other than the drones this is one of mankind’s oldest stories. Replace drone and bomb with arrow for an older version.

Steve Clemmons on getting involved in Yemen.

Hi, Demi. I didn’t write a diary — not sure how interesting the logistics would be to most people, but I still think I may write it up. Last week was hectic!! It went very well….we didn’t get to see Obama, although he did appear and speak to folks only about 15 minutes before we were scheduled to sing, so he was in the building at least.

There are lots of pics on my Facebook page, most with captions!

Let us hope the next failed airline bombing is NOT done with explosives inside an artificial limb.

The security system seems a modern day, not-funny Keystone Cops operation. I’m freakin glad the system of having a brave Dutchman close to a would-be bomber worked.

They must have money to burn.

I vehemently disagree. Rachel is discussing topics and providing a viewpoint available almost nowhere else. What is your beef with her?

I’m still confused. I still don’t know which comment was opaque, jargonized, etc. Oh, well.

Good, good. I’ll check that.

Think of all the tasty oil we can protect in Nigeria. Surely letting this guy through was simply a clerical error.

Let us hope the next failed airline bombing is NOT done with explosives inside an artificial limb.

Hmmm…never thought of that. I always announce as I’m going through that “door frame” device that I have an artificial knee, and I am always pulled aside and given the entire examination with a wand, pats, etc. I guess it is because they cannot (and should not) assume that the beeping is from the titanium knee joint and miss the bomb I might be hiding in my underwire bra or something. It is only a minor inconvenience and the TSA screeners are invaribly polite and proper.

That millimeter wave screening device sure seems like science fiction, though.

Your comment has way too much generalization for me. She speaks on a huge variety of the very important issues. She has been bold, courageous and brave. I have not always agreed with everything she has said, and I can’t stand to watch that little twerp friend of hers that she has on at the end. But, to say she has sold out is not a true or very thoughtful comment. Reminds me of all the folks yelling at Jane these days.
I think she’ll stay on for a while. Not that I’m running any media outlets. What’s your corporate media experience that leads you to say that?

I accept responsibility and will volunteer to fall on my obtuseness sword. Once I figure out where I misplaced it.

Henceforth, will TSA personnel feel the crotch of each passenger to check for explosive underwear?

I can’t stand to watch that little twerp friend of hers that she has on at the end.

Kent Jones, ugh. I just turn the show off when he is up — he is always last and you don’t miss anything except him. Or more accurately, I TiVo Rachel and just stop watching and delete the recording at that point.

LOL! Were you being obtuse?

They might. They already pat below and around the breasts/bra area on a female, and you have to turn your pants waistband inside out — at least if you are wearing jeans with rivets. And they pat my knee thoroughly.

No swords. No weapons. If it was you, I think perhaps an obtuse one second time out will suffice, and I think you get a reduction for time served. *g*

Simply feeling around can be bolloxed as they say. Without a strip search, X-rays and a cavity search you will never know for sure.
(replaced now with know. typing is not my greatest skill.)

Agreed.

Henceforth, will TSA personnel feel the crotch of each passenger to check for explosive underwear?

I know what to do.

They can give all boarding passengers a Taser jolt to see who will go up in smoke and flames.

Or… Have an anesthesiologist knock them out for the duration of the flight.

Anybody got Glen Beck’s phone number?

Passengers are not allowed to reach into their body cavities during the final hour of flight.

And the point Rachel’s security expert made last night is that adding screening for things someone already has tried doesn’t keep us safer because the bad uns will look for other things we haven’t protected against. Our system is completely reactive, not proactive.

Until my recent DeeCee trip, since 9/11 I always check my luggage (I mostly fly Southwest and it still is free) just to avoid the plastic bag with little bottles schtick. I couldn’t risk lost or delayed luggage so I carried it on this time, uneventfully, but trying to figure out what they consider “liquid” for that quart sized bag was a challenge. I finally left a travel size hair spray just in my regular luggage and they didn’t stop me.

Belloxed? There you go, again. Back to the corner. I’ll send over some coffee and donuts.

My bil, the Muslem, is flying to Canada this morning. Spoke with my mother yesterday who was all worried about him traveling. I told her not to worry. I told her she was buying into the medias fear spreading. I think I calmed her down.

But I could be English.

Tea and crumpets, then?

Peanuts. Airline peanuts.

I want to hear the media use the term “blowback” in reference to this latest terrorism attempt, because it does seem to be exactly that: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/12/29/terrorism/index.html

No effing shit!
Unbelievable what we think we are entitled to get away with…and that the PEOPLE of this country have no clue of their government doing.
We won’t escape this until we let go of the “America is the best” myth.
New World Order in action!!!! See it here! Only a nickel!

My wife and I believe that people should either be obliged to fly in their underwear or perhaps in the altogether. Currently, I think that some people should either be allowed or forced to keep some of their clothes on.

Safety first!

Now THAT would make me swear off flying forever!

I almost can believe this thing was set up; a mini 911, just to remind US that the bad guys are still there.
I heard a passenger call into Thom Hartmann’s show to say that after the “attack” they made the passengers coming in from outside the country keep their hands in their laps for the final hour of flight.
And I thought “you went along with it, tho didn’t you?”
Step by step; giving up our rights to fear.

I already have..since 2003. I hear it’s MUCH worse now

So if someone is carrying a bomb on their person keeping your hands in their crotch is supposed to solve a problem? Are they going to hand out “reading” literature during this time?

the lefty blogs are taking their cue from the righty blogs, besides us, most blogs are defending obama’s bush script

I rode a plane last summer because of a lack of options. All I could think was you people are protecting me from getting on the plane on time. People ride Harleys without a helmet and I’m here waiting to get doused with the other sheep.

Maybe, Everyone put your hands on your heads. That way they can’t pull a detonator stringy thing.

From the Air – Laurie Anderson
…
Good evening. This is your Captain.
We are about to attempt a crash landing.
Please extinuish all cigarettes.
Place your tray tables in their
upright, locked position.
Your Captain says: Put your head on your knees.
Your Captain says: Put your head on your hands.
Captain says: Put your hands on your head.
Put your hands on your hips. Heh heh.
This is your Captain-and we are going down.
We are all going down, together.
And I said: Uh oh. This is gonna be some day.
…

whether i agree with you or not, my point was…how should one deduce that from the tember of the discourse? that’s all. i like specifics as opposed to vague allusions to things you assume others are — wink, wink — talking about.

as for yemen: it is what it is. if the fool is strapping a bomb to his balls at his sister’s wedding party, or some such, better to take out the wedding party than the 707. unpopular here, i know, but i’m pragmatic that way.

As a general rule killing people and their families because of what you imagine they might do doesn’t end up being pragmatic. It does end up leading to escalations of violence and hatred though. Depends upon your goals.

Why are you guys putting up a link to Maddow’s corporate astro-turf to sell us more war? Really? We needed to see that propaganda? We needed to hear Maddow describe Al Qaeda as a “massive threat everywhere”? She spent plenty of time listing all the kinda-like attacks against us, but glossed over as fast as possible the part where we have been bombing them for years to get to her joke on Lieberman as fast as she could.

When you promote corporate astro-turf as quality journalism you do everyone a disservice.

Perhaps what you see as vague allusions are simply ideas that you don’t particularly agree are true. The vaguest part of the conversation might very well have been around trying to decipher your definition of vague.

Laurie Anderson…now THERE’S name you don’t hear much anymore.
And that was sorta of a “whoa” statement.

I like specifics too. That’s why, when there was no “in response to” on your comment, I got confused. wink, wink.

You might want to get your eyes and ears checked.

really, i think rachel gets it pretty much right.

debateable. sometimes yes. sometimes no.

That’s part of the unending cycle of violence, which most of us here are trying to stop. Hasn’t 60 years of retaliatory violence connected to the region been enough?

After admiring her since the very first episode of UNFILTERED, I find myself a bit disappointed in Rachel’s performance here. It seems she’s been thoroughly assimilated now, and is quite prepared to aid the Amerikan corporate-militarist propaganda effort.

Some people think that violence used to keep others in line, usually not members of their own group, is right when done for a just cause. I believe that the person who said “do unto others has you would have others do unto you” was not simply talking about each person’s next door neighbor. Justice without mercy is useless.

Preemptive violence cannot be even vaguely be compared to justice. Whether via a shoe bomb or a drone it is equally unethical.

Yemen’s the new war huh? Watch for reports of a new oil or unobtainium deposit to be found there…

There is no defense capable of stopping everyone willing to trade his life for yours.

With all due respects, this is nonsense.

The United States happens to be a highly interconnected society with multiple points of failure. The airline industry happens to be a prime example of this broader situation.

Yes, indeed, it is difficult, if not impossible, to defend against suicide attacks against points of failure – at least not without resorting to totalitarian measures.

But the fewer the points of failure and the less interconnected the society, then the smaller this problem becomes; because it is easier to defend those remaining points and the less serious the consequences of any security lapse.

Which begs the question of why do we persist in maintaining such a vulnerable state. We have spent trillions to sustain this Rube Goldberg situation instead of attempting to re-engineer a more solid posture.

So for those who bewail the current state of airline transportation, I have only one reply:

Get a horse.

According to Wikipedia between 2000 and 2006, 17.5% of the population lived on less than US$ 1.25 per day.

Somewhat like Afghanistan, Yemen is probably more of a strategy state. To the north is the country that has people that, unlike Afghanistan, actually took paid for or took part in 9/11 much as that same country is to the south of Iraq. Maps are such interesting things to look at.

The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either.
Benjamin Franklin.

Silly ideas these primitive thinkers used to defend.

For a very sick subset of our population (think the Cheney family, the Kagan family, the Kristol family, the Hannity’s, etc.) war is entertainment as long as they aren’t asked to do audience participation.

I read somewhere that the drones look like giant crosses in the sky, kind of a Christian crusade angel of death for all those heathens on the ground.

yes. now please make that argument in a forum that will actually make a difference, because i think that most of us who don’t see it quite so unequivocally, that you might be addressing here, totally concur. but when you go on a yemeni or somali or pak fundamentalist blog and get those guys to concur with you and agree to disagree non-violently you will rate a peace prize too.

i will cheer you on wholeheartedly, but i really have profound doubts, this far down the line, that such transcendant understanding is something attainable in this plane. no sarcasm or irony intended: i really don’t think that is achievable. i think this is all process.

We kill innocent men, women, and children in their homelands every fucking day.

The real tell about Maddow and Olbermann selling out will be if Jane suddenly disappears from the guest list.

as for yemen: it is what it is. if the fool is strapping a bomb to his balls at his sister’s wedding party, or some such, better to take out the wedding party than the 707. unpopular here, i know, but i’m pragmatic that way.

That from your 112.

It’s apparent we need to start in our own backyard based on the above comment you made earlier. It would be hard to convince anybody to act non-violently when a large segment of our population is as “pragmatic” as you.

Under international law it is not permissible to take out the wedding party to preclude an event that hasn’t happened and may not happen.

When we took out a restaurant full of civilians in a suburb of Baghdad in the early days of the invasion because there was “intel” that Saddam was there, not only did we commit an overt war crime, our sheepish media reported it breathlessly as if this search for Saddam and the bodies and body parts left in its wake were just so much background scenery.

I know you were responding to someone else’s post SD, this wasn’t meant as a poke at you, just stating a fact for the other person.

i’m sure that was unequivocal but again vague.

you seem to be saying that others don’t have backyards to clean up: that we alone are culpable for this one.

I would demand my test be done by the opposite sex. This of course creates a conundrum for still closeted gay people.

“…the United States will do more than simply strengthen our defenses.”
The statement is fairly innocuous. How do you get from it, to some of the incendiary inferences being made here?

Kent Jones has been tamed down for TV. On Rachael’s radio show, he was incredibly funny. Even on TV, tell me of one person with a persona and delivery like Kent Jones. Perhaps he is an acquired taste.

i believe that was my post you were responding: i absolutely hear you. obviously, really awful that.

however, when such occasions are used to hide or to allow for more nefarious activities, which we all know they frequently are, it cannot be an outrage when those events are targeted. sometimes erroneously and sometimes because the target is warned that they’ve been clocked and don’t show up.

i am simply saying that there is enough culpability to go around. and while we’re online talking to ourselves, quite literally preaching to this choir, those guys are on another line preaching to another choir that cares far less for what we think.

It’s not vague.

It’s futile to try to convince somebody to stop their violent acts when we adhere to the same retaliatory mentality we accuse others of having. The “you stop bombing us and we’ll stop bombing you” gambit isn’t effective.

You wanna play word games play them with someone else.

Buh bye.

How wonderful, now Yemen is our enemy! Along with all the other Muslim nations that we are destroying. What America is experiencing is a Judeo Christian Zionist crusade against Muslims.
America has become one evil empire being let by the shadow government within our government that creates false terrorist events, creates enemies out of other nations and profits off of the death and destruction of other nations.
As a Christian, not a JudeoChristian, I have not be corrupted with the leaven of the pharisees. You know, the Billy Bob evangelical types who are war mongers that idolize the modern day pharisees and fight all their wars.
So now we Americans have to give up more of our freedoms and be body scanned and questioned at airports because a patsy muslim was coached and allowed to do a terrorist act. These are all staged terrorist acts which are designed to take more of our freedoms away from us and wage a complete police state in America.
Follow the money trail and you will see who is behind all This. It is the Central bankers and all their lackeys. Remember this “The love of money is a root of all sorts of evil”, ITim6:11
Remember how Jesus Christ threw out the money changers, well that is what is needed in America right now. We want our libery and freedom back you dogs.

“What happens if the next failed terrorist is from, say, Germany?”

You know the answer: NOTHING. Look what happened when an American (McVeigh) committed terrorist acts right here in the “homeland.” Yeah, Americans were rather upset, but they weren’t upset about McVeigh’s citizenship. It just proves how FAKE the war on the Middle East is.

Okay, how exactly does an infidel convince a jihadist to just knock it off? I’m not advocating anything here, I’m asking a pretty fundamental question.

what? it is a fundamental question and you have yet to answer it. but you have an apparently inexhaustible litany of dismissive rhetoric.

fundamental question: can you speak to it?

I’m probably going to fail miserably, but the fundamental question, in my mind at least, is one of morals, and how one decides to go about living this thing called life we’re all a part of.

We basically have a choice of living a bit more righteous, but dangerously, or a bit more “ethically challenged”, but perhaps safer. In other words, we accept as a given (or should) that by having moral standards which we just won’t break under any circumstances means our enemies will indeed take advantage of them. That makes them morally inferior. To counter that, we can continue to live a bit more righteously, or we could lower ourselve to their level and react accordingly.

If we decide it’s wrong to bomb a large gathering of innocent people just to get the one or two very real security risks there, then you can rest assured these very real security risks will know this, and take advantage of it. So now we have to choose whether to accept that risk, or change our principles.

IMO, it’s a similar argument about liberty/security. I would always prefer the maximum liberty, and do so with the full understanding that it reduces our security. Likewise, I would rather behave in a civilized, moral manner, and do so with the full understanding that it reduces our security. Because, IMO, when we respond likewise, we are then no better than they are. And I would rather live a riskier life a bit more free and respectful of others than I would live a safer and less free one where we’re no better morally then the enemies we profess are so barbaric.

IMO. As always, YMMV.

IMO, it’s a similar argument about liberty/security. I would always prefer the maximum liberty, and do so with the full understanding that it reduces our security. Likewise, I would rather behave in a civilized, moral manner, and do so with the full understanding that it reduces our security. Because, IMO, when we respond likewise, we are then no better than they are. And I would rather live a riskier life a bit more free and respectful of others than I would live a safer and less free one where we’re no better morally then the enemies we profess are so barbaric.

Beyond being no better than they are (and many dark-siders would argue – cluelessly – that that’s irrelevant when we are at “war”), what the tough response types never acknowledge is that the hatred engendered when we carelessly kill innocents will haunt us through generations, and that it has a snowball effect.

And, Mr. President, killing innocents is far from the Christianity that you have professed to believe in. Remember, sir, that your neighbor, the one you are commanded to love, is anyone you encounter, not Joe Biden.

“If we decide it’s wrong to bomb a large gathering of innocent people just to get the one or two very real security risks there…”

From what I’ve read regarding the new Rules of Engagement in Afghanistan, We are accepting a lot more risk, as opposed to the previous administration’s cavalier attitude toward collateral “damage”. My question was directed at Southern Dragon and, in my opinion, SD’s reactionary rhetoric.

Who knows, if she wears a _Beautiful_Red_Dress_ her _Superman_ might appear from nowhere and rescue her. Heh.

To ‘convince’ someone who already holds a diametrically opposed position is nearly impossible. That’s where warring usually happens. Not surprisingly it is people who hold strong religious spiritual views who are hardest to ‘convince’. The Crusades and the Inquisition are excellent examples of that.

“Beyond being no better than they are…” Who are the they you’re referring to, the Taliban, Al Qaeda? And on what basis do you infer we’re “carelessly” killing innocents? To imply that this administration doesn’t acknowledge the possible blowback and take its long term consequences into account is absurd. Same fundamental question, how exactly does an infidel convince a jihadist to just knock it off? What do you suggest?

no one, absolutely no one, here is advocating indiscriminate bombing of anything. the obama administration is not advocating that: to say otherwise is just untrue and irrepsonsible. and certainly cannot be compared to, oh say, dick cheney’s decidedly indiscriminate attitude. but making broad judgments about circumstances you know nothing of is quite seriously talking to hear yourself.

and for god’s sake, the jihadists are not sweating this. obviously, duh, all muslims are not jihadists; these guys are nihilistic psychopaths. the only discussion i want to hear about the tim mcveighs of the muslim extreme is how we single them out and end them.

no one is endorsing the haphazard bombing of wedding parties.

no one is endorsing the haphazard bombing of wedding parties.

I’m not sure my post said anything about haphazardly boming wedding parties. I said, assuming we know that our enemies will take advantage of this, we then face a choice. So I’m a bit confused by this statement after the one below at 112.

as for yemen: it is what it is. if the fool is strapping a bomb to his balls at his sister’s wedding party, or some such, better to take out the wedding party than the 707. unpopular here, i know, but i’m pragmatic that way.

Because here you do seem to be advocating bombing a wedding party. Now you can claim this is somehow “not haphazardly” doing so, but that wasn’t what I was saying anyway. I would assume that if those in charge made the decision to bomb a wedding party they had some sort of intelligence leading them to that decision.

Again, my opinions are this. If we have these rules that we won’t bomb wedding parties period, then our enemies WILL take advantage of it. I know this and accept this. And therefore, knowing this, when we get intelligence that such and such has packed himself with explosives to be taken on the next plane out of Yemen and is now attending his sister’s wedding party (which seems to be your example), we must choose to take him (and the wedding party) out or not. And I would always choose not, fully aware that it is riskier. Others would choose yes, call in the drones. But they should do so fully aware that there is no such thing as 100% accurate intelligence.

I’m a bit confused as to which side you’re on with regards to that issue, but I just wanted to clarify mine. Because I most certainly did NOT accuse anyone of endorsing haphazard bombing of anything.

Based on the majority of comments, it appears that a number of people seem to think we have, and continue, to target wedding parties. It has happened, but not by design. The current Rules of Engagement are far more protective of civilians than under Bush, but even back then, no one targeted wedding parties. Some of the assumptions and assertions being made here are really over the top.

Nobody’s said anything about “targeting” wedding parties. The bombing of wedding parties is used as an example of the consequences of incomplete or faulty intelligence. The habit of the military to deny civilian casualties in the face of them, the latest example being this week, only to have to admit that civilians were in fact killed when irrefutable evidence has been broadcast throughout the world doesn’t make the military look particularly bright or competent. Karzai’s influence and power in the country is tenuous at best. He knows that the families of those killed will be more likely to support the insurgents than not. The killing of a civilian is felt not only by the immediate family but the entire tribe as well. That’s a lot of potential insurgents. Every time one of the drone strikes kills civilians the insurgency gains strength and support.

The use of the term “jihadist” that I saw someone here use earlier is not only dehumanizing, it is incorrect. It is a term of derision I’ve seen and heard US troops use about Irakis. The Afghans have a long history of defying foreign invaders. First and foremost the Afghan insurgency wants the foreign invaders, that would be us and our NATO allies, out of their country. They will never give up that fight.

Thanks SD. You say it so much more clearly and articulate than I do. What I was aiming at in my two or three posts above you just nailed in one. Thank you.