Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 156 (8144 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-22-2014 11:46 PM
72 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MikeManea
Upcoming Birthdays: purpledawn
Post Volume:
Total: 738,354 Year: 24,195/28,606 Month: 1,496/1,786 Week: 358/423 Day: 118/77 Hour: 3/4

Announcements: Emails Restored


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Chat/Comment thread
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12837
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.1


(6)
Message 56 of 306 (646264)
01-03-2012 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Buzsaw
01-03-2012 8:53 PM


Re: Random Irrefutability
LoL. Truth & logic, coupled with what is observed in the real observable world, indicative of intelligent design, trump what is relative, unobservable assumed and quatitively theorized.

I can only assume that at some point the English language must have slept with your wife and run over your dog. Nothing else could explain your repeated and vicious assaults on it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Buzsaw, posted 01-03-2012 8:53 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12837
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 127 of 306 (646462)
01-04-2012 5:52 PM


In today's news, the White House has denied that the CIA ever teleported Obama to Mars.

You know what this means, don't you? It means that Buzsaw is going to have to believe that they did.


Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Perdition, posted 01-04-2012 6:15 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded
 Message 130 by Buzsaw, posted 01-04-2012 6:36 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12837
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 247 of 306 (647269)
01-08-2012 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by Buzsaw
01-08-2012 9:24 PM


Re: Enter Global Government
LOL. That is changing as per Biblical prophecies of 19 centuries ago, i.e. the global government and marks, numbers monetary system, i.e. the New World Order, i.e. the 10 horned beast of Revelation. All of the recent presidents of both parties and particularly Barak Obama et al have been and continue to make it happen.

But without it actually ... happening.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Buzsaw, posted 01-08-2012 9:24 PM Buzsaw has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12837
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 264 of 306 (647660)
01-10-2012 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by crashfrog
01-10-2012 4:25 PM


Anwar al-Awlaqi was a casualty of a military strike on a battlefield.

To be more precise, he was a casualty of a military strike on Anwar al-Awlaqi.

It's a stretch to refer to it as the "ordered killing" of anybody.

U.S. Approves Targeted Killing of American Cleric.

Barack Obama orders killing of US cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by crashfrog, posted 01-10-2012 4:25 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by crashfrog, posted 01-10-2012 4:57 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12837
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 272 of 306 (647715)
01-10-2012 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by crashfrog
01-10-2012 4:57 PM


That's always been something militaries do.

I'm not understanding the objection. The President is the Commander in Chief of the military. He's Constitutionally empowered to determine military objectives. The sole limitations on military objectives are the US Constitution, our treaties with other nations, and the terms by which Congress authorizes military force.

Holding a US passport (and there's no evidence that he actually did) doesn't immunize you against the military. It's not a magic anti-bullet shield. If Anwar al-Awlaqi had been arrested and taken into US custody, it certainly would have been illegal to execute him without a trial. But he wasn't. He was a casualty of a military strike.

I didn't object to them killing him.

I objected to you saying that it wasn't an "ordered killing", and to you calling it "a strike on a battlefield" as though there was anyone else at all involved except him and his entourage and as if he just got hit by a stray round in all the confusion.

What happened was: they decided to kill him, found out exactly where he was, and shot a couple of missiles directly at him. Then they said "hooray, we killed him". It's not like he just happened to be standing where they were shooting their missiles and they said: "What, we killed who now? Well there's a stroke of luck!"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by crashfrog, posted 01-10-2012 4:57 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by crashfrog, posted 01-11-2012 7:12 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12837
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 285 of 306 (647911)
01-11-2012 7:34 PM


World's Smallest Vertebrate?
There is some dispute about whether it's this frog or whether it's some sort of fish. But it's definitely a very very small frog.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12837
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 286 of 306 (647912)
01-11-2012 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by crashfrog
01-11-2012 7:12 AM


It's a distinction without a difference. If the President orders an airstrike on an al-Qaeda training camp, they don't wait for people to clear out of it - indeed, killing the people who are training there is as much an objective as destroying the assets at the camp itself. Is that an "ordered killing"? If you fire an air-to-air missile at another airplane, the goal is not so much to destroy the easily-replaced airplane but to kill the expensively-trained pilot; is that also an "ordered killing"?

I think the difference is that they were deliberately trying to kill one specific named person. They weren't trying to kill a generalized "the people in the training camp" or "the pilot of the plane", they had a missile with his name on it.

How about snipers? While its not uncommon for military snipers to fire in an anti-materiel capacity, it's more common for them to set their sights on enemy officers. Is that an "ordered killing" as well? If it is, it's never been understood to be something outside of the appropriate realm of military conduct.

I never said that killing Anwar al-Awlaqi was "outside of the appropriate realm of military conduct". I approve of killing him. I merely say that they did so deliberately.

The point of the strike was to take out Anwar al-Awlaki's capabilities to harm US citizens. As such, the targets were his resources, his vehicles, his associates, and his own person, since killing him would certainly neutralize him as a threat.

Yes.

I think you're displaying a certain naivete about what soldiers actually do. The reason they carry guns is to carry out targeted killings of the soldiers on the other side. Combat isn't just a thing where soldiers face each other and then spray bullets around, hoping that one side will get nervous and leave. They're taking aim and firing at each other with the intent to kill. Soldiers try to kill each other, it's not something new.

So in defense of your claim that it wasn't an ordered killing, you're going to argue that all deaths in war are in effect ordered killings?

Well that would include Anwar al-Awlaqi then.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by crashfrog, posted 01-11-2012 7:12 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014