Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: If the U.S. military fires upon someone, is that all the proof needed that the target was guilty? [View all]USArmyParatrooper
(1,827 posts)185. Enemy forces who surrendered?
And I'm not saying that certain individuals can never be found and captured. But it's ridiculous suggest that alone is a means to defeat a well armed, well organized and funded international terrorist organization.
So he was in Yemen. Is it your contention that enemy forces can simply cross boarders so they can operate with impunity? Absolutely not. You don't sit back and wait for them to take the initiative when it's convenient for them. You hit them where they train, where they sleep, where they keep their supplies, everywhere they can be found.
Every military in the world operates that way for a reason.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
231 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
If the U.S. military fires upon someone, is that all the proof needed that the target was guilty? [View all]
Zalatix
Mar 2012
OP
No trial? We gave Saddam Hussein as much and he supposedly had nukes aimed at us, or whatever.
Zalatix
Mar 2012
#3
Way back when, I had the occasion to share a fighting hole with a variety of grunts.
11 Bravo
Mar 2012
#127
Since when do you execute a kill on sight order on someone who hasn't opened fire on you?
Zalatix
Mar 2012
#10
Wait, you are asking me for specific evidence of innocence? What country do you think you're in?
Zalatix
Mar 2012
#17
You have repeatedly dodged my questions, and have hidden behind irrelevant responses
Zalatix
Mar 2012
#76
A trial isn't required for all strikes against enemy combatants. However we've no evidence al-Banna
Zalatix
Mar 2012
#80
#l. I don't know that the people targeted at Normandy were really enemy Combatants.
AnotherDreamWeaver
Mar 2012
#208
I bet you believed Saddam had WMD's. Or that the Gulf of Tonkin was not a hoax.
Zalatix
Mar 2012
#16
Counterpoint? Uh, no, what you did was offer no proof at all that al-Banna did ANYTHING wrong
Zalatix
Mar 2012
#65
How was Awlaki an 'enemy force'? This case is only special because no one knows why
sabrina 1
Mar 2012
#159
But we do not know that. He was a preacher, where is the evidence he was a member of
sabrina 1
Mar 2012
#168
Of course I demanded that. Bush was the president, I never believed a word he said.
sabrina 1
Mar 2012
#172
When a country is lied into war, I do not generally support that war and question every
sabrina 1
Mar 2012
#176
I have not quit my day job, but thanks for the advice. I was right just to remind you, about
sabrina 1
Mar 2012
#184
Probably because he was not an Al Queda leader. Not to mention the fact that the people
sabrina 1
Mar 2012
#192
Yemen is not a war zone. Do we have troops in Yemen? Are we at war with Yemen?
sabrina 1
Mar 2012
#188
Blatant insults? For demanding proof that al-Banna did anything to deserve a drone strike?
Zalatix
Mar 2012
#58
If you are gulible enough to think invading an a country that never attacked us is honorable?
bahrbearian
Mar 2012
#69
Far cry from "not bowing down" to blatent hyperbolic blanket stereotyping insults.
PavePusher
Mar 2012
#131
Why is that such a problem, arresting people in a war zone? We have prisons all over
sabrina 1
Mar 2012
#161
Do you think World War II should have been fought with arrests instead of munitions?
randome
Mar 2012
#165
Up until the moment they surrendered, the US army was trying as hard as they could to kill them.
hack89
Mar 2012
#220
You are being hyperbolic. No one has said 'our President is out to kill us'.
sabrina 1
Mar 2012
#156
Hey, I didn't start the toy drum comment crap. What makes you think that was any nicer?
Zalatix
Mar 2012
#45
I see no reason to support wrongheaded insanity because it is acting consistently
TheKentuckian
Mar 2012
#229
What may be causing the confusion here is some don't know the definition of a "free fire zone?"
NNN0LHI
Mar 2012
#31
Exactly. Like when they shot Randy Weaver's wife while she held a baby in her arms.
Zalatix
Mar 2012
#48
And it's okay to shoot a woman with a baby in her arms if she and her husband are racists.
Zalatix
Mar 2012
#102
"And your evidence for the lack of proof is"... hahahahaha LOL. I'm dying here.
Zalatix
Mar 2012
#116
Your problem is you refuse to open your eyes. This is EXACTLY what George Orwell warned about.
Zalatix
Mar 2012
#135
No, my 'problem' is that I don't spend my life being afraid of what COULD happen.
randome
Mar 2012
#136
LOL so your argument here is "just stick your head in the sand and it'll be all okay". Gotcha.
Zalatix
Mar 2012
#137
Arguably, killing civilians far from any battlefield is not "military action"
EFerrari
Mar 2012
#128
Then it would have been trivial for you to demonstrate I'm wrong, instead of just claiming it (nt)
jeff47
Mar 2012
#227
Anyone who accepts accusation as guilt or by extension targeting as guilt is
TheKentuckian
Mar 2012
#57
Oh...I know. I regularly suffer from poor deployment of the rhetorical "you"
TheKentuckian
Mar 2012
#230
Since the doctrine is not only no limited to bin Laden or any particular describable people
TheKentuckian
Mar 2012
#231
So if you are identified as a threat to America and a drone is called in on you
Zalatix
Mar 2012
#118
If you haven't figured out how to not be perceived as a military threat, I doubt I can help you.
JoePhilly
Mar 2012
#150
This is not an argument. You would have to be MAKING an argument first, and you are not.
Zalatix
Mar 2012
#151
Sure it is. Just check out My-Lai, Sand Creek, Dresden, Hiroshima, and other places.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Mar 2012
#117
Sabrina, you will be here to say "I told you so" when the Republicans get control of the drones.
Zalatix
Mar 2012
#148
Yes, because we just NOW started killing al-Qaeda and Taliban members?
USArmyParatrooper
Mar 2012
#157
Charges should have been filed. Why were they not? Charges were filed against Bin Laden
sabrina 1
Mar 2012
#204
I have no idea what you are talking about. I am against the DP, regardless of the crime, so
sabrina 1
Mar 2012
#224