quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Yes, you lied.

The attack on the Gas tankers wasn't the US's responsibility since the air strike was ordered by a german commander. You tried to imply it was part of the Obama administrations policies. That's a lie.

Same with the friendly fire incident involving the police.

Same with the attack on a convoy mistaken to be Taliban.

Who's putting words in who's mouth now?

I stated quite clearly I was talking about civilian casualties from US fire, and that I thought the other poster was going that route. You don't see a correlation between the HIGHEST number of civilian casualities in a given year, since the whole thing started, and a change in administration? Yet you are willing to give Obama credit for all of the successes.

Who is being dishonest now?

As to your claim that it isn't the responsibility of the US since it was ordered by a German officer, it was kind of funny how it was reported "Entire village destroyed in U.S. attacks". Then again, I must have more influence than I thought.

You tried to make a connection between these events and the Obama administrations policies. That was a lie as I demonstrated.

Just to rub it in. Why was a German officer able to call in an airstrike by a US aircraft? Because they were both part of a NATO force that was created in 2001 and has been operating nationwide since 2006.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius
So let me see if I understand your position. In another thread, you claimed that the success in Afghanistan is all because of the efforts of the Obama admin, and in this thread you are claiming that none of the collateral damage done during that same period is related to the new administration. Does that about sum it up? If that is accurate please explain to me how that is possible.

I have noticed you like to throw around the word lie and bullshit an awful lot, I didn't realize that only opinions and facts that agree with you are the truth. I shall start submitting my writing to the information czar to make sure it is acceptable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius
So let me see if I understand your position. In another thread, you claimed that the success in Afghanistan is all because of the efforts of the Obama admin, and in this thread you are claiming that none of the collateral damage done during that same period is related to the new administration. Does that about sum it up? If that is accurate please explain to me how that is possible.

I have noticed you like to throw around the word lie and bullshit an awful lot, I didn't realize that only opinions and facts that agree with you are the truth. I shall start submitting my writing to the information czar to make sure it is acceptable.

More lies.

I pointed out that a well known change in policy, working more closely with the Pakistani military, has had a number of high profile successes recently. That can be tied directly to administration policy.

Civilian casualties resulting from a NATO field commanders decision and from friendly fire incidents are not assignable to the administrations policies since it is quite obvious that there is no policy to attack civilians or allies.

If you don't like being called a liar stop telling lies.

quote:


This is still the old program of going after these guys in any way we can safely. It differs not noticeably from the old cruise missile strikes. We're clearly not targeting families and we're clearly succeeding which is nice considering the people responsible for killing 3000+ of us have been able to sleep easy for the last 7 years.

quote:

We weren't going after Al Qaeda or the Taliban from 2003 to 2009.

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

Got that Thadius, the collateral damage from attacks that domken supports is not Obamas fault, just the positive results are his.


Though Thaddius, I do wish you had not given domken this avenue to divert into.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

Got that Thadius, the collateral damage from attacks that domken supports is not Obamas fault, just the positive results are his.


Though Thaddius, I do wish you had not given domken this avenue to divert into.

I don't mind opening it up to him. It will help show the double standard, there are plenty of threads from the last couple years talking about the very same thing and how horrible the last administration was because of the collateral damages.

I am all for the doing whatever is necessary to win and get this thing taken care of. If there is a new policy that is leading to that end, I will give credit where credit is due. To be fair, over the years Ken has been pretty pro military.

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

And it is not Obamas decision to place half our troops under NATO command? He is the CIC. And it is his choice alone.

It amazing how ignorant you are.

quote:

You are like realone. You snip a sentace out of context and run with it. It is stupid. Bush was correct that terrorism is to be dealt with Millitarily, not as a law enforcement problem.

quote:


Obama is not attempting to arrest these suspects. He is having them killed with no trial, by the millitary. Far from any battlefiled or active combat. And often killing bystanders, including kids.

I thought the Political issue pushed by the Left and Obama that terrorism is a law enforcement issue was nonsense and frankly dangerous to our soldiers.

I am glad Obama was lying. I just find the hypocrisy by you, domken and the usual suspects, as you whip around and pretend you have allways been in support of Death Squads about it to be funny.

Because thats what we are doing. Running Death Squads.

You guys were upset that we waterboarded a few high value detainees, now you support killing people along with thier kids, with no trial.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

And it is not Obamas decision to place half our troops under NATO command? He is the CIC. And it is his choice alone.

It amazing how ignorant you are.

Now, now puppydawg, let's play nice before I have to smack you on your snout with a rolled-up newspaper.

Before you call someone ignorant might I suggest you save yourself from looking foolish by researching what you claim?

You can start with our treaty obligations to NATO and continue on into why we have troops in Afghanistan under NATO command.

quote:

You are like realone. You snip a sentace out of context and run with it. It is stupid. Bush was correct that terrorism is to be dealt with Millitarily, not as a law enforcement problem.

No, I didn't snip it out of context for the simple reason that your posts are invariably so disjointed that it is almost impossible to tell what your points are or what the context is.

As far as dealing with terrorism militarily these quotes sum up my feelings on that:

There is no war on terror in the UK, says DPP - Times Online

Sir Ken said: “London is not a battlefield. Those innocents who were murdered on July 7, 2005 were not victims of war.

“And the men who killed them were not, as in their vanity they claimed on their ludicrous videos, ‘soldiers’.

“They were deluded, narcissistic inadequates. They were criminals. They were fantasists.

“We need to be very clear about this. On the streets of London, there is no such thing as a war on terror. The fight against terrorism on the streets of Britain is not a war. It is the prevention of crime, the enforcement of our laws and the winning of justice for those damaged by their infringement.”

Sir Ken said that it should be an article of faith that crimes of terrorism are dealt with by the criminal justice system. And he made clear his concern over the threat to civil liberties from repressive legislation introduced in response to a perceived terrorism emergency.

The criminal justice response to terrorism must be “proportionate and grounded in due process and the rule of law”, he said. “We must protect ourselves from these atrocious crimes without abandoning our traditions of freedom.” 

quote:


Obama is not attempting to arrest these suspects. He is having them killed with no trial, by the millitary. Far from any battlefiled or active combat. And often killing bystanders, including kids.

I thought the Political issue pushed by the Left and Obama that terrorism is a law enforcement issue was nonsense and frankly dangerous to our soldiers.

I am glad Obama was lying. I just find the hypocrisy by you, domken and the usual suspects, as you whip around and pretend you have allways been in support of Death Squads about it to be funny.

Because thats what we are doing. Running Death Squads.

You guys were upset that we waterboarded a few high value detainees, now you support killing people along with thier kids, with no trial.

Well again, your lack of a clear train of thought and a concise issue make it difficult to respond. 

You are bringing in a number of unrelated things and trying to connect them.

I will say this though, Iraq was a war of choice while I believe Afghanistan was a war of necessity.

And while we are on the subject of hypocrisy, maybe you can explain why the same conservatives who hailed Bush's invasion of Afghanistan are now saying that Obama trying to finish the job is a mistake.

Maybe you can also tell me why the civilian deaths in Iraq from coalition forces, 37,000 by even the most moderate estimates, have received no attention from conservatives.

Or even why civilian deaths in Afghanistan were ignored by conservatives until now.  Why is it that Obama continuing the predator strikes that Bush initiated suddenly ignites compassionate conservatism?

Lastly, I have to wonder where the conservative patriotism has gone to.  Remember support our troops?

You do realize that the "death squads" as you refer to them are our troops?