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]excuse not to write
(147 posts)54. Randy Weaver and his family were racists
Rec withdrawn.
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