It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump’s Unprecedented Attack on Iran and the Rule of Law

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2020 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: strongfp

he wasn't supposed to be outside his country, based on UN restrictions. Im not sure it really matters what his stated reasons/propaganda would be.

I agree, we shouldn't be drone striking willy nilly in other nations. Prior to Trump we conducted thousands and thousands of drone strikes. I believe we can confirm around 6700 total, killing upwards of 10k people. It would be nice if people were genuine in their concern prior to "orange man bad". But at this point, its a legitimate tool that was passed from bush to obama to trump. Protesting now....is pure hyprocisy when the prior 6700 opportunities to protest passed without a peep.




posted on Jan, 16 2020 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Flesh699

Trump has droned more people with high civilian death... I wasn't happy with Obama droning people but Trump is worse.



posted on Jan, 16 2020 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I criticized Obama for drone strikes, and now Trump. Only difference i see is that people on ATS have a strong pro-trump bias that blinds them to anything he does in the ME.

Im really tired of Trump supporters constantly using the weak partisan argument of; "but you didn't complain when obama did it".



posted on Jan, 16 2020 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Ksihkehe



It needs no elaborate rebuttal from me


Maybe in your head, but I don't think it's without merit. And I'm obviously not alone. Thanks for not letting us know how you've reached your final destination with that conclusion, I guess?



Looking through the list of article headlines from this guy is very telling.

Full of hyperbole and exaggeration, what a hack.


That was your initial response, and it looks like another adhom fallacy. Actually, you're still weaseling around with this "body of work" Bollocks as if it means something. You've literally fortified your adhom fallacy with that.

Busted! Next?



posted on Jan, 16 2020 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan




he wasn't supposed to be outside his country, based on UN restrictions. Im not sure it really matters what his stated reasons/propaganda would be.


You don't act in compliance with UN legislation, but you have the audacity to cite it's decisions when you play judge and executioner?

The irony!



It would be nice if people were genuine in their concern prior to "orange man bad". But at this point, its a legitimate tool that was passed from bush to obama to trump. Protesting now....is pure hyprocisy when the prior 6700 opportunities to protest passed without a peep.


Go back and check my posting history? This is a strawman argument, and we both know it.



posted on Jan, 16 2020 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: blueman12

Most of them likely protested it under Obama, too.

I agree, whataboutism is ridiculous. Unless its pointing out hand wringing that seems to be solely because of a dislike of one person while giving all other people a pass. Which was my point.



posted on Jan, 16 2020 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan




he wasn't supposed to be outside his country, based on UN restrictions. Im not sure it really matters what his stated reasons/propaganda would be.


You don't act in compliance with UN legislation, but you have the audacity to cite it's decisions when you play judge and executioner?

The irony!


I, personally, am under no obligation to abide by UN laws/rules. My country, on the other hand, could be (there are debates about this). The point is: he was not really supposed to be outside his country for reasons that have been pretty well explained already.



It would be nice if people were genuine in their concern prior to "orange man bad". But at this point, its a legitimate tool that was passed from bush to obama to trump. Protesting now....is pure hyprocisy when the prior 6700 opportunities to protest passed without a peep.


Go back and check my posting history? This is a strawman argument, and we both know it.

Im sorry, that was directed towards the audience in general and not you personally. My point is that the media did not care how many people Obama killed, but is 24x7 claiming Trump is criminal for doing it.



posted on Jan, 16 2020 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Fair enough. At least trump isn't getting a nobel peace prize for bombing women and children like obama did. Im not completely against drone strikes, but there is a lot of wrong in what we are doing in the ME.

The various and complex agendas in the ME have deep roots and it seems every president becomes a pawn to the game happening.



posted on Jan, 16 2020 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: blueman12

Yeah, i am not fond of drone strikes as well. Although in this case i see nothing really wrong with it, other than we could have used the special forces following him to bring him in alive rather than making him a martyr.



posted on Jan, 16 2020 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Flesh699

yeah at least trump is not droning weddings like Big O used to do



posted on Jan, 16 2020 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

Trump cancels causality report on drone strikes.
warontherocks.com...

From 2017,


According to research from the nonprofit monitoring group Airwars, the first seven months of the Trump administration have already resulted in more civilian deaths than under the entirety of the Obama administration. Airwars reports that under Obama’s leadership, the fight against IS led to approximately 2,300 to 3,400 civilian deaths. Through the first seven months of the Trump administration, they estimate that coalition air strikes have killed between 2,800 and 4,500 civilians.

theconversation.com...

And that's way back in 2017. Trump doesn't even want to release the true numbers now. Civilian deaths are much worse than during Obama's presidency.



posted on Jan, 16 2020 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

And let's get some current news in here :
U.S. drone strike kills 60 afghan civilians


Local government officials and members of the Herat provincial council told Tolo News, Afghanistan’s leading 24/7 television news channel, that "at least 60 civilians, including women and children" died in US drone strikes in Shindand, a town in southern Herat. 


Ahh but bombing the #t out of women and children is only bad when Obama does it right? Maybe trump supporters are too busy yelling MAGA like some sheep-human hybrid to care...



posted on Jan, 16 2020 @ 03:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flesh699

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
Saw this in my newsfeed and thought I should share. It's a rather detailed piece on the recent hashashination from the President of a certain hashashin nation. You can keep the pun, and annoy us with your justifications to make it square. This would be the proper topic for that, and I'm looking forward to the loads of spin already.

[...]


Where the # where these idiots when Obama was droning people?

The president has to run any drone strikes through lawyers first. The people that write crap like that are grossly uneducated.
edit on Thu Jan 16 2020 by DontTreadOnMe because: trimmed quote Trim Those Quotes



“Unprecedented”

How about “presidented”?


www.thebureauinvestigates.com...



posted on Jan, 16 2020 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Thanks for the clarification. Well. Most of the MSM didn't even pick up on this new normative - they prefer to support the warmongering MICes in silence.
This is not the media. This is hell with your old dissident PO presenting another thruthdig article, holding high hopes you guys could do something about it. I certainly can't.



I, personally, am under no obligation to abide by UN laws/rules. My country, on the other hand, could be (there are debates about this). The point is: he was not really supposed to be outside his country for reasons that have been pretty well explained already.


The UN doesn't murder people, either.


Callamard then urged Guterres to “activate Article 99 of the U.N. charter and establish an impartial inquiry into [the] lawfulness of Soleimani's killing and events leading up to it."

By means of Article 99, “the secretary-general may bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security.”

UN Expert Demands Official Investigation on Soleimani Killing

Hypothetically speaking, what if the UN decides Mr. Thrumps Down was guilty of violating international law and threatening peace? Is that a decision you could support? And in case you say no - why?



posted on Jan, 16 2020 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: Ksihkehe



It needs no elaborate rebuttal from me


Maybe in your head, but I don't think it's without merit. And I'm obviously not alone. Thanks for not letting us know how you've reached your final destination with that conclusion, I guess?



Looking through the list of article headlines from this guy is very telling.

Full of hyperbole and exaggeration, what a hack.


That was your initial response, and it looks like another adhom fallacy. Actually, you're still weaseling around with this "body of work" Bollocks as if it means something. You've literally fortified your adhom fallacy with that.

Busted! Next?


The longer you respond the deeper you dig.

You could just repond with a polite adieu, but you keep coming back for more and you keep misrepresenting what I said. Almost everybody can see it but you.

I don't even support the drone strike that killed Sgt. Salami, but there was NOTHING new about this kind of American diplomacy. This was not some big new development in American warfare.

Take your BS elsewhere. Maybe Dailykos or Huffpost will gush over your post. If you didn't want critical analysis you could have put it somewhere other than the Pit. You asked for it. Now you got it.

Buyers remorse?



posted on Jan, 16 2020 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: blueman12

en.wikipedia.org... was actually refering to bombing weddings not civilian casualties although those are bad too

www.thenation.com...

Soltis can, however, be forgiven his ignorance. In this country, no one bothers to count up wedding parties wiped out by US air power. If they did, Soltis would have known that the accurate line, given the history of US war-making since December 2001 when the first partyof Afghan wedding revelers was wiped out (only two women surviving), would have been: “A US drone…took out a likely target.” After all, by the count of TomDispatch, this is at least the eighth wedding party reported wiped out, totally or in part, since the Afghan War began, and it extends the extermination of wedding celebrants from the air to a third country—six destroyed in Afghanistan, one in Iraq, and now the first in Yemen. And in all those years, reporters covering these “incidents” never seem to notice that similar events had occurred previously. Sometimes whole wedding parties were slaughtered, sometimes just the bride or groom’s parties were hit. Estimated total dead from the eight incidents: almost 300 Afghans, Iraqis and Yemenis. And keep in mind that, in these years, weddings haven’t been the only rites hit. US air power has struck gatherings ranging from funerals to a baby-naming ceremony. The only thing that made the Yemeni incident unique was the drone. The previous strikes were reportedly by piloted aircraft.
so at least 8 in the pre trump times

and from your own source

An unconfirmed number of Afghan civilians – reportedly more than 60 – were killed along with the regional leader of a splinter Taliban faction and dozens of militants in a US drone attack in Herat province on Wednesday.
odd you seem to have left the "unconfirmed part" out of your snippit but if so is pretty bad thing to have done but i will wait for the afghan governments investigation to reach its conclusion vs trusting a site labeled "antiwar" and why were we bombing that group again oh yeah this

The Canadian private security firm GardaWorld issued an advisory after the strike, stating it was reportedly carried out in retaliation for a recent militant attack on an anti-Taliban militia in which 16 people, including 1 civilian, were killed.


but they probably have their own bias in reporting as well but its war and sadly that does some times come with civilian casualties least when trump got the general there were not any civilians as collateral damage but it does appear accurate that he is trying to limit the reporting on such civilian casualties per pbs and a variety of other sources www.pbs.org...



posted on Jan, 16 2020 @ 04:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flesh699

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
Saw this in my newsfeed and thought I should share. It's a rather detailed piece on the recent hashashination from the President of a certain hashashin nation. You can keep the pun, and annoy us with your justifications to make it square. This would be the proper topic for that, and I'm looking forward to the loads of spin already.

[...]


Where the # where these idiots when Obama was droning people?

The president has to run any drone strikes through lawyers first. The people that write crap like that are grossly uneducated.
edit on Thu Jan 16 2020 by DontTreadOnMe because: trimmed quote Trim Those Quotes



The thread ENDED HERE

Second post



posted on Jan, 16 2020 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: blueman12
a reply to: Flesh699

Trump has droned more people with high civilian death... I wasn't happy with Obama droning people but Trump is worse.




You for real 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

WTF ?

Wait... Obama 6 wars in 7 different country in 8 years?

Your seriously think Trump killed more

Farkkkkkkkk the worlds gone mad



posted on Jan, 16 2020 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

Ahh okay, however i don't see much difference between bombing weddings and any other locations when it concerns civilians.

How can you not hate America if your son, daughter, mother ect.. was "accidentally" killed in a strike. How does the u.s. know their double tap technique (second strike on the same area to kill people helping the wounded) is not killing innocent bystanders who just come to help the wounded?

The fact is that civilian deaths have ramped up since Trump took office. And as you pointed out, since 2001 presidents have been fine doing this type of stuff. Since 2001 we have been killing innocent people for the war on "terror" that sems to have no end-goal.

Yes there are causalities of war. War for what? Causalities creating future anti-western extremists... When does it stop and for what?

Trump said he was going to clear the swamp, but he only seems to act just as swampy as obama on foreign policy.



posted on Jan, 16 2020 @ 04:48 PM
link   
a reply to: TritonTaranis

Look it up. Civilian deaths by strikes. Im sure you won't. Can't have anything contradict Trump as nothing but a glorious god.

Indefinite stay in iraq, lying about Afghanistan, and endless air strikes.

Im not here to argue wether obama , bush, or trump was the best pawn of the military industrial complex. Im just arguing against people who seem to have this illusion that trump is somehow doing something different and less swampy.




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join