What are you talking about? You're making very gross generalizations about a lot of people.
Edward Snowden
- Thread starter knewsom
- Start date
What are you talking about? You're making very gross generalizations about a lot of people.
So, you mean to tell me, it takes a Drone attack to kill a sole being?
The reason I bring it up is because this kid was not the first, and it will not be the last. 3 or 4 days in the national news then he's forgotten. Not that this is any different from my friends Lance Cpl. Daniel Bubb or Lance Cpl. Jason Redifer, and it will be no different when the government finally catches up to Snowden.
I'd feel better of my friends Lance Cpl. Daniel Bubb or Lance Cpl. Jason Redifer were killed as collateral damage. That would make all the difference in the world.
These guys would feel remorse. Ray, on the other hand, is hardened. He's not alone as a lot of big bad Marines feel the same as he does. Collateral damage, ya know? It's all part of the game. That American citizen had no rights. He just deserved to die. No mistake was made. Kill kill kill. Oorah!
I'm not sure Ray is hardened... he did vote Dem in the last election I think? I still don't get what you're angrier about, the fact that drones are used to kill people, the fact that drones are used to kill US citizens without due process, or the fact that things are in the news then disappear like everything else because they can only sensationalize something for so long before the masses lose interest and the news becomes repetitive?
If it was proven that drone strikes could have been used to kill each member involved with the Sept 11 attacks, would you have supported that? Is it because you can't see the actual impact of such a killing or because of the US citizen aspect? Or other questions listed above, I'm becoming repetitive and rambling if that doesn't make sense let me know.
If it was proven that drone strikes could have been used to kill each member involved with the Sept 11 attacks, would you have supported that? Is it because you can't see the actual impact of such a killing or because of the US citizen aspect? Or other questions listed above, I'm becoming repetitive and rambling if that doesn't make sense let me know.
You are aware that people join our military at ages as young as 17, which is but a single year older than the person in question, and enter academies in preparation of that action, by whatever means necessary, as high-school freshmen?
Many of those fighting are a mere 18 years old. Hell, they can't even have a beer with their grilled cheese for three more years.
Indeed, this is the first year of their lives that they can, all by their lonesome, purchase certain video games, and the first year they can see a horror movie without their parents.
So, what the FUCK does age have to do with it? An incident of collateral damage occurred. It's regrettable, but just who was harmed in the event is irrelevant. Someone was, and that's all that matters.
These operations weren't accomplished with magic.
Cheers,
Kennith
I'm angered that that we, US Citizens, are losing our freedom in the namesake of security. I'm angered that our very own military is supporting taking those freedoms away from us. I'm angered that military personal, the very ones who are supposed to be protecting our freedoms, cannot even say "opps" or "yeah, that was a bad mistake" when a 16 year old American citizen gets killed from a fucking Drone attack that should have never taken place. Instead, they've been taught the phrase "collateral damage".
I look back to 2001 and remember my grandmother being so mad about Bush starting his shock-and-awe. My grandmother to this day despises this war. I never agreed with her. In fact, I enjoyed watching CNN and seeing the bomb blasts - I thought it was pretty cool and felt it was all necessary. I don't feel that way anymore and looking back I think my grandmother was right. Where has it gotten us as a Country? Now our very own military personnel is going to tell us that phone taping is necessary for our own safety. That just seems a little backwards to me. I thought our military was originally there to protect our Country from invasion. Now look at them...
The most important part of my comments you missed. American Citizen.
It should not matter if they're sitting in a house in Palm Springs, or in a hut in Kazakhstan.
American Citizens have rights, no matter who their parents are.
Do me a favor and dig a little deeper into this story. If you want some homework just ask.
Interesting-what I'd offer is they say we cannot fathom that which we haven't experienced. That starts and stops the conversation in many ways with you about violence and death; but for the sake of the discussion what interests me is that you seem to be like many in this thread-willing, even passionate, about your privacy even if it means the threat to the citizens of the country is higher. As has been stated people (truly innocent people) may die from that threat-but that's ok because the manifestation of our rights trumps that.
On the other hand you are outraged that a 16yr old was killed when he was immersed in terror activity in an active war zone.
Is it just blatant hypocrisy or the partisan driven absence of objectivity at work?
The threat is higher?
The threat is higher, the threat is higher, the threat is higher, Jews are bad - - - - This is clearly a Self-fulfilling prophecy. You guys are scaring the shit out of me. I may not agree with Dan on a lot but this is blatant. Using the IRS (a high level government department) to attack citizens on political beliefs, Benghazi, AP wiretaps (freedom of speech, Freedom of the press right?) and Showden with the PRISM program that hasn't done shit to protect us. The only way this violation of our constitutional freedoms could be more clearer is if it came and slapped you across the face. What is the one thing Bin Laden and the the rest of the bunch would love to inflict on people of the United States? Take away our freedoms maybe? My suggestion would be less time on CNN and Fox News and more time contemplating your own thoughts. Polarization can be a very scary thing.
"Few are those who see with their own eyes and feel with their own hearts."
-Albert Einstein
Last edited:
So parsing that out a bit-to get past rhetoric and something closer to facts:
-The IRS, which appears to be a group of staffers taking exception to conservative organizations who routinely lament their very existence, go after groups wrongfully hiding under provisions of the tax code that don't apply (i.e. specifically political groups using non-profit status to not pay taxes even though that very status is explicitly for non-partisan groups). Was it from the top down, or did the IRS just say F the Tea Party. My issue with it is that they didn't do it for liberal groups that also hide under those provisions. Done evenly it would be nothing more than the proper administration of the tax code. As it is, it gives the rightful appearance of partisan allegiance from an entity that should enforce the law evenly. That being said there is no evidence that it was done at the high level of the administration and the fact is the groups shouldn't have been using that portion of the tax code to hide under (looking past that overlooks the context which is convenient on Fox but since we're going to pull the thread and think about this objectively you have to start there.)
-What about Benghazi, specifically, is the great conspiracy here? I'm interested to hear what the facts are that concern you. Is it the Dept of State culture that doesn't want to overplay threats as it undermines their ability to work with other countries-the same culture that found the Ambassador going to an unstable city despite knowing it was a high threat environment? What I'd stipulate here is most people don't actually know what happened that day-what they think is a scandal is the talking points issue afterward which is a faux scandal perpetuated by the media. That doesn't do justice to the tragedy and sacrifice the 4 Americans paid that day and isn't helpful in making things safer down the road. Nor does it have a damn thing to do with infringing on anyone's freedoms here in the US.
-AP wiretaps involve an active investigation into the leaking of classified information to an unauthorized source. Ironically this administration actually investigates those (most don't) and now its a scandal because the government is trying to stifle free speech. In truth do I agree with it; absolutely not-the juice isn't worth the squeeze in my opinion. The potential gain of who the leaker was doesn't outweight the perceived infringement on freedom of the press and the AG should resign but I don't spend a lot of time focused on the domestic side of things so I defer to others who may know more.
-PRISM actually has precious little to do with US citizens. What I want to hear is someone explain exactly what privacy is invaded by the collection of metadata too; when someone can articulate how their rights are actually violated by it I'll be impressed. Regardless the overarching reality is that PRISM and the other programs PRIMARY reason for being is to collect intelligence against non-domestic entities on behalf of national security priorities. What most people seem to lose track of is the government really doesn't give a rat's ass what you do, how you communicate, etc. The metadata allows for the establishment of a comprehensive baseline to detect patterns and anomalies for further exploitation. Name one substantive usage of that violates a USPER's rights. At this point the hysteria is just that, a lot of loud talk with no substance behind the concerns. Hypothetically elements could be used against people but there is no evidence of it. What there is ample evidence of, despite your comment, is its frequent use as part of the greater collection of intelligence against our adversaries but that's just dismissed out of hand because it doesn't fit your narrative.
For what it's worth, I can't stand Fox News-nor CNN. Most of my news is from reading (not watching the TV) and from a broad base of sources with a variety of positions on the political spectrum. Parsing out fact from opinion is a critical aspect of this; unfortunately a lot of facts in some of these things are still classified and thus to discuss them beyond Dweb deep commentary is not really an option.
All that being said, I found this story to be a good potential illustration of some of the differences in thoughts between folks like me sitting inside the beltway and inside the gov't who do this and people fortunate enough to not be close to DC:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...s-out-of-step-with-america-on-snowden/277670/
That's two quotes hinting at the same thing. Do everybody a favor and post the links or information to a credible source that uses legitimate facts to disprove the statement in the only story that you linked to.
According to Snowden, chemtrails are the only thing keeping the US from global warming incineration, but at what price?
http://aircrap.org/snowden-uncovers...nda-cfr-millions-spent-confuse-public/337689/
http://aircrap.org/snowden-uncovers...nda-cfr-millions-spent-confuse-public/337689/
You won't be laughing when a chemtrail sneaks into your house in the middle of the night and gets your cat pregnant.
Spoon feed. Got it.
Here's some back story. I hope these media outlets are legitimate enough for a serviceman.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/05/16856963-american-drone-deaths-highlight-controversy?lite
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...h-certificate/2011/10/18/gIQA9zycuL_blog.html
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/6/7/exclusive_nasser_al_awlaki_to_obama
The part you're failing to grasp, for some reason, and I do not understand why since you are retired military, is that this boy was a US citizen. You, of all people, above and beyond everyone else, should understand this. Yet, you assume the military makes no mistakes, and you assume this kid was up to no good or something. Actually, I don't know what you think so I'll stop guessing. It just blows my mind that you pick-and-choose who the Constitution applies to.
Last edited: