Obama Bombs Pakistan Killing 4 Women 3 Children and 12 Other Civilians Wounding Many More

[IllTestYourGirls]

http://news.antiwar.com/2010/08/23/u...n-in-pakistan/

The combined toll from the blast was 20 people killed, with at least four women and three children among the slain. At least 13 other civilians were also reported wounded, including a number of other children....

The large numbers of civilians (700 in 2009 alone) killed in the US drone strikes has fueled considerable anti-American sentiment in Pakistan. When pressed during a previous visit Secretary of State Hillary Clinton shrugged off concerns about the civilians, saying only ?there?s a war going on.?

[theking]

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

http://news.antiwar.com/2010/08/23/u...n-in-pakistan/

Collateral damage is a given...combat is a dirty affair.

[Randy West]

[HighEnergy]

Originally Posted by theking

collateral damage is a given...combat is a dirty affair.

~~~ qft ~~~

[damnage]

At least bush had the balls to see a war through, not just fire drones from 23,000 feet....

[Tom_PM]

There's a war going on.

[Jason Voorhees]

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

Obama Bombs Pakistan Killing 4 Women 3 Children and 12 Other Civilians Wounding Many More

They allow the president to fly planes in the war zone now? Wow, he really did mean change!

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by damnage

At least bush had the balls to see a war through, not just fire drones from 23,000 feet....

At least attempt to get the facts correct...

[IllTestYourGirls]

There is a war going on in Pakistan? When did we declare that? Please don't tell me Obama is waging an unconstitutional war.

Originally Posted by Jason Voorhees

They allow the president to fly planes in the war zone now? Wow, he really did mean change!

whew, then Bush didnt invade Iraq the tanks and planes did it!

[Pics Traffic]

Was he flying a drone?

[CyberHustler]

Wrong place, wrong time... that'll teach those wanna-be's from hanging out with the real terrorists, huh? As far as I'm concerned, they were future terrorists and deserved it.

[theking]

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

There is a war going on in Pakistan? When did we declare that? Please don't tell me Obama is waging an unconstitutional war.



whew, then Bush didnt invade Iraq the tanks and planes did it!

Congress did not officially declare war...but Congress did give the power to the President (at the time President Bush...but that very power is still in effect with the current President) to engage our forces however he chooses to. So yes...there is a "war" taking place in Pakistan (they are engaging their military against the Taliban and "terrorist" orgs)...as are we.

This has been in the news for years...maybe you have not been paying attention.

[seeandsee]

Originally Posted by Randy West

fucking murders pissing on poor people

[Coup]

bIraq Insane O'Commie

[sternyduke]

obama rules

[IllTestYourGirls]

Originally Posted by theking

Congress did not officially declare war...but Congress did give the power to the President (at the time President Bush...but that very power is still in effect with the current President) to engage our forces however he chooses to. So yes...there is a "war" taking place in Pakistan (they are engaging their military against the Taliban and "terrorist" orgs)...as are we.

This has been in the news for years...maybe you have not been paying attention.

Which vote was that? Because even the court ruling up holding the Iraq resolution does not say the president has the right to go to war wherever and whenever he sees fit.

[Randy West]

Originally Posted by seeandsee

fucking murders pissing on poor people

[bronco67]

Were they waist deep in smelly water when the bob hit?

[IllTestYourGirls]

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

whew, then Bush didnt invade Iraq the tanks and planes did it!

Originally Posted by Slow Roosevelt

Was he flying a drone?

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

Which vote was that? Because even the court ruling up holding the Iraq resolution does not say the president has the right to go to war wherever and whenever he sees fit.

The Iraq war was illegal, Bush was required to prove they had WMD's and he had to prove a 9/11 connection - which he didn't. Now we're forced to clean up the mess.

Afghan, was not an illegal war. Authority was given and they proceeded forward. What happened though is we attacked a Country that did not attack us, that's a war crime against Bush. Which is what Obama changed. We aren't at war with Afghan or Pak, we're at war with the terrorists that attack us, which occupy those lands and today has corporation of the Gov's that also fight these terrorists.

[IllTestYourGirls]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

The Iraq war was illegal, Bush was required to prove they had WMD's and he had to prove a 9/11 connection - which he didn't. Now we're forced to clean up the mess.

Afghan, was not an illegal war. Authority was given and they proceeded forward. What happened though is we attacked a Country that did not attack us, that's a war crime against Bush. Which is what Obama changed. We aren't at war with Afghan or Pak, we're at war with the terrorists that attack us, which occupy those lands and today has corporation of the Gov's that also fight these terrorists.

How many terrorists that attacked us came from Pakistan or Afghanistan again?

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

How many terrorists that attacked us came from Pakistan or Afghanistan again?

All of them? I'm sure some were born in other Countries, might have been in other Countries back then being that we had reports of taking terrorists from all over. However, the main core, the battle core, was located in Afghan and now is located in Pakistan. So technically they came from those Countries but aren't part of those Countries - which is why we aren't fighting those Countries.

[IllTestYourGirls]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

All of them? I'm sure some were born in other Countries, might have been in other Countries back then being that we had reports of taking terrorists from all over. However, the main core, the battle core, was located in Afghan and now is located in Pakistan. So technically they came from those Countries but aren't part of those Countries - which is why we aren't fighting those Countries.

So are you just re-writing history now? Or maybe I did not ask the question direct enough. How many 9/11 attackers were from Pakistan or Afghanistan.

15 Saudis, one Egyptian, one Lebanese and two from the Union of Arab Emirates

[theking]

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

Which vote was that? Because even the court ruling up holding the Iraq resolution does not say the president has the right to go to war wherever and whenever he sees fit.

Actually the President has always had the power to engage our military anywhere any time he chooses to...without any prior consent of Congress. The Congress placed certain limitations upon a Presidents authority in 1973.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

So are you just re-writing history now? Or maybe I did not ask the question direct enough. How many 9/11 attackers were from Pakistan or Afghanistan.

15 Saudis, one Egyptian, one Lebanese and two from the Union of Arab Emirates

That's not a re-write of history, that is the Countries they were born in. Of course these peoples Countries didn't train, harbor, instruct or help them to attack America. Really no reason to exclude that fact.

[IllTestYourGirls]

Originally Posted by theking

Actually the President has always had the power to engage our military anywhere any time he chooses to...without any prior consent of Congress. The Congress placed certain limitations upon a Presidents authority in 1973.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

I know of this. But Obama is clearly breaking that. We have had armed forces in Pakistan since he got in office.

orbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war

A quick google search will show how long we have had armed troops in Pakistan.

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

How many terrorists that attacked us came from Pakistan or Afghanistan again?

well if you include India with 'Us', that's a pretty easy question

[GotGauge]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declara..._United_States

[theking]

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

Which vote was that? Because even the court ruling up holding the Iraq resolution does not say the president has the right to go to war wherever and whenever he sees fit.

The vote was made three days after the 9/11 attacks. It says, “The president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

Which over rides the War Power Act.

[IllTestYourGirls]

Originally Posted by theking

The vote was made three days after the 9/11 attacks. It says, ?The president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.?

Which over rides the War Power Act.

And how many of those children aided in 9/11 terrorist attack? This not give the US free will to bomb the shit out of anyone. You are stretching the law to fit your agenda.

I am confused about this part of the resolution, could you explain it?

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes [sic] any requirement of the War Powers Resolution

[Doctor Dre]

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

There is a war going on in Pakistan? When did we declare that? Please don't tell me Obama is waging an unconstitutional war.



whew, then Bush didnt invade Iraq the tanks and planes did it!

Obama is responsible for every pain in the world. Obama did this, obama did that. The guy must have 10 000 clones to be able to do all theses things.

[theking]

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

And how many of those children aided in 9/11 terrorist attack? This not give the US free will to bomb the shit out of anyone. You are stretching the law to fit your agenda.

I will repeat...collateral damage is a given when engaging in combat...always has been and always will be...combat is a dirty affair. We had no intention of bombing children...but when children are within the killing zone of a target (and sometimes we are aware of this and sometimes we are not)...they will be injured/killed...and the same applies if a weapon is accidentally off target...which also happens.

BTW...what agenda is it that you think I have.

[theking]

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

And how many of those children aided in 9/11 terrorist attack? This not give the US free will to bomb the shit out of anyone. You are stretching the law to fit your agenda.

I am confused about this part of the resolution, could you explain it?

The Congress chose not to invoke the War Power Act and instead voted to give the President virtually unlimited power to prosecute the "war on terror".

[BlackCrayon]

when did obama start flying jets?

[The Demon]

I'm strangely comfortable with Obama doing this. What I mean is, it was collateral damage sure but it's enough time Obama shows some testicular fortitude.

[Vendzilla]

we shouldn't be there, period
flying drones in is safer than sending in troops, but mistakes are going to happen. But this is where the US has the advantage in war, if we play by their rules, we loose

[theking]

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

we shouldn't be there, period
flying drones in is safer than sending in troops, but mistakes are going to happen. But this is where the US has the advantage in war, if we play by their rules, we loose

I agree...we should have withdrawn when the Taliban Government was overthrown...Bin Laden was not captured...and a new Government was established.

We should have withdrawn from Iraq when the Iraqi military was defeated...the Government overthrown...and a new Government was established.

If needed we can always rinse and repeat. Nation building should not be our responsibility.

[cykoe6]

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

http://news.antiwar.com/2010/08/23/u...n-in-pakistan/

My question is why are we using drones instead of B-52s? It seems inefficient.

[theking]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

The Iraq war was illegal, Bush was required to prove they had WMD's and he had to prove a 9/11 connection - which he didn't. Now we're forced to clean up the mess.

Afghan, was not an illegal war. Authority was given and they proceeded forward. What happened though is we attacked a Country that did not attack us, that's a war crime against Bush. Which is what Obama changed. We aren't at war with Afghan or Pak, we're at war with the terrorists that attack us, which occupy those lands and today has corporation of the Gov's that also fight these terrorists.

BTW...the Iraq war was not an illegal war. The President was given a thumbs up by Congress and the last UN resolution prior to the invasion was basically for Iraq to comply or pay the consequences. They did not comply so the U.S. provided the consequences...and there was never a proposed UN resolution in condemnation of the action the U.S. took against Iraq.

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by PR_Tom

There's a war going on.

I missed the war declaration against Pakiston ... probably watching a skin flick ...

[theking]

Originally Posted by directfiesta

I missed the war declaration against Pakiston ... probably watching a skin flick ...

Nothing unusual for you...now is it?

Originally Posted by theking

The vote was made three days after the 9/11 attacks. It says, “The president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

Which over rides the War Power Act.

BTW...we are engaged with Pakistan...not against Pakistan as their military is engaged against the very same people that we are.

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

So are you just re-writing history now? Or maybe I did not ask the question direct enough. How many 9/11 attackers were from Pakistan or Afghanistan.

15 Saudis, one Egyptian, one Lebanese and two from the Union of Arab Emirates

That cannot be true !!!!

You are lying .. there has to have been some Iraqis ....

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by Doctor Dre

Obama is responsible for every pain in the world. Obama did this, obama did that. The guy must have 10 000 clones to be able to do all theses things.

He is responsible for this situation in Pakistan .... creating new terrorist to attack the USA ...

... mainly because he is afraid of the backlash from the republicans ....

[IllTestYourGirls]

Originally Posted by directfiesta

That cannot be true !!!!

You are lying .. there has to have been some Iraqis ....

Im still trying to figure out these people who are defending this attack.

1) How were the children related to 9/11 attacks

2) How did Obama think this was a fair trade off (20 women and children) for one terrorist? How was this "necessary and appropriate force".

3) Who were they after? Was he tied to 9/11 attacks?

4) Why has the intel be so bad that some estimates have at least 10 civilians killed by drones for every alleged terrorist.

Many questions left unanswered here.

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by theking

BTW...the Iraq war was not an illegal war. The President was given a thumbs up by Congress and the last UN resolution prior to the invasion was basically for Iraq to comply or pay the consequences. They did not comply so the U.S. provided the consequences...and there was never a proposed UN resolution in condemnation of the action the U.S. took against Iraq.

Congress said he had to prove that Iraq had or was creating WMD's and he had to prove a connection to 9/11, all of which he did not do and could not do. He went to war, without providing any proof, that is not a legal war.

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by theking

I will repeat...collateral damage is a given when engaging in combat.

So consider 9/11 as collateral damage !

[IllTestYourGirls]

Originally Posted by directfiesta

... mainly because he is afraid of the backlash from the republicans ....

many republicans are turning against the war. he should have no worries about backlash from this. he had no worries about backlash over health care, so he should have none about this.

you have to deal with the fact he is as blood thirsty as Bush.

[theking]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Congress said he had to prove that Iraq had or was creating WMD's and he had to prove a connection to 9/11, all of which he did not do and could not do. He went to war, without providing any proof, that is not a legal war.

That simply is not the case...Congress overwhelmingly accepted the intel reports provided to them by the CIA about WMD's. In addition to the CIA...every single major intel agency in the world said that he had WMD's. Congress never required...or even asked about a connection that Iraq may have had with 9/11. Possibly a few individual members of Congress asked...I do not recall if a few did or not.

[theking]

Originally Posted by directfiesta

So consider 9/11 as collateral damage !

The targets were not collateral damage...so no...and even the deaths were not collateral damage as it was their intention to kill as many as possible.

[theking]

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

many republicans are turning against the war. he should have no worries about backlash from this. he had no worries about backlash over health care, so he should have none about this.

you have to deal with the fact he is as blood thirsty as Bush.

That last statement pretty much identifies your ignorant perspective.