The News Thread

[Einherjar86]

These stats are limited to Iraq and Syria, you didn't catch that? Include Obama's Pakistan stats and it puts Obama ahead of Trump.

Nope, it was late and I was just trying to get you to cite something. But I think BO responded effectively to your comment.

Also, here's another article from the same venue you cited:

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.c...counterrorism-strikes-double-trump-first-year

The number of US air strikes jumped in Yemen and Somalia in 2017, pointing to an escalation of the global war on terror.

President Donald Trump inherited the framework allowing US aircraft to hit suspected terrorists outside of declared battlefields from his predecessor, Barack Obama. Bar some tinkering, his administration has largely stuck within the framework set by the previous one.

However, the quantity of operations has shot up under President Trump. Strikes doubled in Somalia and tripled in Yemen.

I find your graceful suggestion that fewer civilians have died under Trump to be misleading. Nothing much is changing.

What bleeding hearts forget is the "fleeing ISIS part", and only focus on "getting caught in airstrikes" part. It's the sad reality of war.

I'm not denying that. You routinely twist my comments into something other than they are.

I'm not denying that civilians die in drone strikes. I'm simply countering this suggestion that civilian deaths are likely to decrease under the Trump administration. We're not discussing ethics, we're discussing the statistics and the all-but-certain amplification of the War on Terror.

 

[CiG]

They all indicate that drone strikes have vastly increased under the Trump administration.

They indicate that deaths are down while drone strikes are up. I didn't say Trump launched less drone strikes than anybody, I said he has killed less people in his first year than the previous 3 presidents. An increase in drone strikes =/= killing more people, not to mention Obama's numbers which involve the non-drone military activities.

I also didn't say anything about intentions, just speaking about the raw numbers here.

I find your graceful suggestion that fewer civilians have died under Trump to be misleading and superfluous. Nothing much is changing.

I don't recall limiting my comments to civilians.

 

[Einherjar86]

So, are we including terrorists in those numbers? The people you think deserve to die? I'm confused.

 

[CiG]

As I said, raw numbers. Wasting money killing anybody over in the middle east, terrorist or civilian, is something I'm almost always against just personally speaking.

If a terrorist comes to our countries and attacks us on our soil, by all means shove an explosive up their ass. I haven't once limited my comments to civilians, that's just something you assumed all on your own.

 

[Einherjar86]

You're right, I did. I apologize. I'm just surprised that this is your position. A terrorist on foreign soil is no different than a terrorist on domestic soil, as far as the War on Terror is concerned. In other words, a terrorist abroad is a terrorist who may potentially visit "our countries" and do us harm. If all we're doing is vindictively sticking explosives up their asses after they kill people, that seems counterproductive, no?

Put another way, is it really "wasting money" if we're killing those intent on doing us harm?

FYI, I'm not defending drone strikes or the War on Terror. I'm simply confused by your position.

 

[Dak]

I'm not denying that. You routinely twist my comments into something other than they are.

I'm not denying that civilians die in drone strikes. I'm simply countering this suggestion that civilian deaths are likely to decrease under the Trump administration. We're not discussing ethics, we're discussing the statistics and the all-but-certain amplification of the War on Terror.

There was already a discussion of the ethics aspect that CIG was involved in earlier; this conversation looked like a spillover. Trump has certainly allowed for military to conduct itself in the interests of winning engagements rather than making humanitarian headlines.

Edit: We wouldn't have to worry as much about terrirists coming here if we had stricter immigration and border controls. It would be more humanitarian.

 

[Einherjar86]

I didn't see that; I was responding to CIG's comment that Trump has killed fewer people in his first year than Obama did.

 

[CiG]

If all we're doing is vindictively sticking explosives up their asses after they kill people, that seems counterproductive, no?

I was being hyperbolic, of course what I mean is I fully support force responses to attacks (which would include attempted/planned attacks) on home soil, I just happen to be a non-interventionist liberal and I haven't supported any of these military actions abroad so far, with the exception of Obama's signing off on the assassination of Osama bin Laden.

I don't support the so-called War on Terror generally speaking, that doesn't mean I'm against national defense against terrorism.

Mind you, this is all especially moot if Donald Trump ends up nuking NK.

 

[Dak]

I didn't see that; I was responding to CIG's comment that Trump has killed fewer people in his first year than Obama did.

Yesh I haven't seen anything about less deaths this year. Strikes are way up. Lives may be saved over time though with ISIS cleared out and the Syrian Civil War potentially winding down.

Same thing occurring at the border. Illegal crossings are down because arrests of illegals are up. The change in approach to law enforcement has changed the cost/benefit calculations of illegal immigration, likely saving lives of some of those who would be coming across the desert or crammed into trunks, etc

 

[Einherjar86]

I was being hyperbolic, of course what I mean is I fully support force responses to attacks (which would include attempted/planned attacks) on home soil, I just happen to be a non-interventionist liberal and I haven't supported any of these military actions abroad so far, with the exception of Obama's signing off on the assassination of Osama bin Laden.

I don't support the so-called War on Terror generally speaking, that doesn't mean I'm against national defense against terrorism.

Mind you, this is all especially moot if Donald Trump ends up nuking NK.

Fair enough, it's a mad mad mad mad world.

Yesh I haven't seen anything about less deaths this year. Strikes are way up. Lives may be saved over time though with ISIS cleared out and the Syrian Civil War potentially winding down.

Same thing occurring at the border. Illegal crossings are down because arrests of illegals are up. The change in approach to law enforcement has changed the cost/benefit calculations of illegal immigration, likely saving lives of some of those who would be coming across the desert or crammed into trunks, etc

I do not believe that increased strikes will wipe out ISIS, but won't speak beyond that. I also don't believe that the prevention of illegal crossings will have much effect on the overall amount of terrorist attacks. All it's doing is preventing illegal crossings, which doesn't translate into terrorism.

But that's what I think, and I don't think it's worth it to have the whole debate again.

 

[Dak]

I also don't believe that the prevention of illegal crossings will have much effect on the overall amount of terrorist attacks. All it's doing is preventing illegal crossings, which doesn't translate into terrorism.

I agree, which is why I stated earlier that there should be more stringent immigration requirements and better border security. The increase in arrests drives down economically driven immigration. Not ideologically driven insurgents.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

https://conservativetribune.com/wom...tm_content=2018-01-04&utm_campaign=manualpost

@Mort Divine your thoughts?

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

Terrorist is such a loaded word. And it seems the like the west has basically adopted it and only uses it when they feel the need to. Surely if you go to some of those middle-eastern countries and ask them who the terrorists are you would hear a completely different response.

I don't support the so-called War on Terror generally speaking, that doesn't mean I'm against national defense against terrorism.

well said

 

[CiG]

North Korea accidentally hit one of its own cities with a missile, report says.

In its relentless pursuit of nuclear strength, North Korea's first land target may have actually been itself. The Diplomat reported Wednesday that an intermediate range ballistic missile launched by the regime last spring accidentally hit the city of Tokchon, which has a population of more than 200,000.

 

[Dak]

Saves on UN food aid. More food for others.

 

[CiG]

I don't know that anybody actually died.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

So the cops out here are now banned from asking people about their immigration status? Man this state is pure shit.

 

[Dak]

Cali has been pure shit for decades.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

oh i know.

 

[Einherjar86]

Caution! Stable genius at work!