Breaking: U.S. drone strike accidentally killed 2 hostages

originally posted by: newWorldSamurai
Unfortunate, but war is messy. Collateral damage is to be expected. I'm not debating the US involvement in the region. I'm just stating that as long as things are being blown up, people will get hurt, intentionally or unintentionally.

My problem with the above is that this is not a declared war. It is an invasion of a sovereign nation by outside interests.
Besides that rest assured you are correct, people do indeed die from bombs and those folks most certainly did not "expect" to be bombed by some aggressor half way around the world for no reason given.

Nobody should be getting blown up at all there, does anyone even know why there are armed forces located there today?
Regards, Iwinder

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
Sad, but sometimes hostages die in rescue attempts or are killed during strikes at the people holding them. It's not as if they always know exactly where they are. It's one of the very real risks of being a hostage.

I have no doubt that prominent AQ terrorists drag these poor hostages around as an insurance policy. That way if they are hit by a drone or raided they at least have the propaganda win of dead innocents at the hands of the USA. They had the American since 2011, I don't see any scenario where they would have released him. Love him or hate him, Pres. Obama has had a record of sending in Spec Ops to rescue hostages with some measure of success, so the new terrorist protocol seems to be to keep hostages holed up and hidden from satellite surveillance, which played a part in this eff-up.

originally posted by: Iwinder

originally posted by: newWorldSamurai
Unfortunate, but war is messy. Collateral damage is to be expected. I'm not debating the US involvement in the region. I'm just stating that as long as things are being blown up, people will get hurt, intentionally or unintentionally.

My problem with the above is that this is not a declared war. It is an invasion of a sovereign nation by outside interests.

Pakistan, Afghanistan and the USA have an agreement in place that allows the US to hunt terrorists there.

This incompetant Prog admin can't pull squat for black missions without getting someone KILLED.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
This incompetant Prog admin can't pull squat for black missions without getting someone KILLED.

Well...as far as the smaller slice of rescue mission (apart form larger black ops)

sampling of DEVGRU/Seal team 6 ops during Obama Administration.

Maersk Alabama hijacking and rescue, 12 April 2009, The Cargo Ship..the movie Captain Phillips (Success)
Linda Norgrove rescue, 8 October 2010 (failed)
Rescue of Jessica Buchanan and Poul Hagen Thisted 24 January 2012 (success)
Rescue of British-Afghan Aid Workers, 28 May 2012 Helen Johnston and three colleagues (success)
Rescue of Dr. Dilip Joseph, 8 December 2012 (success)
Hostage Rescue operation, Hajr al-Sayar district - Yemen, 26 November 2014 ...(8 Hostages rescued, but Americans had been moved before raid)

I think there have been more since I compiled this for a post last year.

And of course the Osama bin Laden raid 2 May 2011 (success) and other non-rescue missions.

Pres. Obama has successfully used Spec Ops more so than any recent president and likely any president in history.

Again...the above is a simple objective observation affirmed by military interviews and articles..not a partisan claim and you can disagree on the tactics or justification or the policy, but the Pres. has had success with Spec Ops and used them a whole lot.

a reply to: Indigo5

Actually the fact that we know these happened illustrates my point.
Obama CAN'T keep secrets and the prior admins HAVE sucessfully done so.
SO the information wouldn't be released for 20 years or in some cases EVER.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

So now he is dumb for coming out about it?

Man he can't win.
First he can't do it without killing anyone as then after that was wrong he can't keep a secret about killing someone

a reply to: Sremmos80

OH he's dumb for a great DEAL of reasons.
Like trying to run ALL of the op from the white hose and microfailing them like his foregin policies he hasn't the SLIGHTEST idea how to excute and is listening to Valerie who hasn't the experience over SEASONED diplomats,and appears to be appeasing those of her faith.


SEE?www.nytimes.com... gtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region&_r=0

a reply to: Indigo5

Keep in mind all the innocent US drones kill don't get reported if they don't have western passports

Not that you probably care, I don't know you well enough

Since our POTUS has admitted that he caused the death of these two individuals. Can or should the families of these two murdered people sue American government, and the admitted murder our POTUS? I do not think the POTUS is beyond being sued.

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: Indigo5


no it was, 1 U.S. citizen,1 Italian, Warren Weinstein and Giovanni Lo Porto,and two worthless bags of pig excrement, may allah not have mercy on their souls and may they wallow in the excrement that they were for all eternity.

Who the hell stars this?

Utter recalcitrants.

originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: Indigo5

While tragic , this end is possibly a more merciful end.

Given what I've seen, indeed.

God help humanity if they had seen a cage.

That poor soul. will forever be a thing in my mind.

Funny how there are so many barbaric form of islam, yet muslims are the good guys, under a bad light.

I just don't understand how any educated human would "Convert" to Islam. It is nearly ludicrous to believe in. Course I don't think any of the religions are worth following but Islam is a joke. Unless you surrender your mind from reality and intelligent judgment you cannot possibly think Islam is a good idea to convert too. I understand kids being brainwashed into the religions from birth but for supposedly intelligent adults to make that choice is beyond my understanding.

I guess I could be the one lacking intelligence. Maybe it is an intelligent decisions to worship invisible friends written about by humans from hundreds and thousands of years ago. Hmmm.

originally posted by: sn0rch

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: Indigo5


no it was, 1 U.S. citizen,1 Italian, Warren Weinstein and Giovanni Lo Porto,and two worthless bags of pig excrement, may allah not have mercy on their souls and may they wallow in the excrement that they were for all eternity.

Who the hell stars this?

Utter recalcitrants.

perhaps people that don't like terrorists, jihadist or murderers. i see no problem with calling them what they are, or cursing those that are terrorist, jihadist or murder's.

Obama administration
41 men targeted but 1,147 people killed: US drone strikes – the facts on the ground

Source

originally posted by: WeRpeons
The U.S. can bomb a home which is under surveillance for days and occupied by leaders of Al Qaida or ISIS, but they can't bomb terrorist training sites? I would think outdoor training sites would be much easier to find than targeting terrorist leaders.


I also wouldn't doubt the U.S. bombed it even though there were two hostages inside. Ooops, we made a mistake. Two hostages are worth sacrificing when you can kill two terrorist leaders?

Have you ever noticed that Obama typically only kills terrorists when they are in small numbers? Almost like he has to kill someone...but doesn't WANT to kill his kind.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Indigo5

Actually the fact that we know these happened illustrates my point.
Obama CAN'T keep secrets and the prior admins HAVE sucessfully done so.
SO the information wouldn't be released for 20 years or in some cases EVER.

It's hard to keep a secret when a US Civilian has been rescued and returned home from terrorist captivity.

Your "point"/claim was not that the administration does not keep operations secret. Your claim was that these black Ops were a consistent failure and got innocents killed. I offered a summary showing the opposite.

You seem to be changing your claims, aims and logic with each post to suit an emotional position.

originally posted by: MensaIT3
a reply to: Indigo5

Keep in mind all the innocent US drones kill don't get reported if they don't have western passports

Not that you probably care, I don't know you well enough

Correct...You don't know me well enough.

originally posted by: Ceeker63
Since our POTUS has admitted that he caused the death of these two individuals. Can or should the families of these two murdered people sue American government, and the admitted murder our POTUS? I do not think the POTUS is beyond being sued.

Presidents can not be sued for official acts only personal ones.

The 1982 Supreme Court decision Nixon v. Fitzgerald gave the president broad immunity against civil lawsuits for job-related actions. Here's the background: In 1968, A. Ernest Fitzgerald, a civilian analyst at the Air Force, warned Congress about the mounting costs of producing the Lockheed C-5A, a transport plane. Soon after, President Nixon ordered Fitzgerald dismissed, and Fitzgerald sued. Ultimately, a 5-4 split Court found in favor of Nixon, holding that the president "is entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts." The theory goes that subjecting the president, who routinely makes decisions that alter the fortunes of millions of citizens, to such lawsuits would cripple his ability to preside effectively and distract him from the job.


The court made a key distinction between presidential actions and personal ones, though, in its 1997 decision Clinton v. Jones. In 1994, Paula Jones sued President Clinton for allegedly sexually harassing her in 1991, while she was an Arkansas state employee and before Clinton won the presidential election. Clinton's lawyers argued that presidential immunity extended to unofficial acts, and that the trial should be postponed until Clinton left office. The court decided against Clinton, who ultimately paid Jones $850,000 to settle the suit. A somewhat similar lawsuit was brought against John F. Kennedy during his presidency. In 1962, Kennedy settled out of court with Mississippi State Sen. Hugh Lee Bailey, aka "the Donkey-Riding Senator," for injuries Bailey sustained in a 1960 traffic accident (involving Kennedy's driver but not Kennedy himself)

www.slate.com...

a reply to: Indigo5

Not really but then again black means secret so that pretty well explains what I mean.
Emotions aren't really a need to me,I try to avoid an egoic response I merely speak by what I know from what I am told by my buddies who are still in and former elites.
Clearly incompetance HAS been shown again and again in our foreign policy apparetly you are bias to some degree.