United States Biden administration policies and actions - megathread

[Zachowon]

Wow... So, minor clerical errors? Do you think that perhaps when the voter records talk about "Aaron Ray is the only person at 579 Jackson Ave Las Vegas, NV 89106 who is registered to vote. Aaron Ray is affiliated with the Republican Party." they might be making a minor error confusing the address with 579 Jackson Drive? https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/579-Jackson-Dr-Henderson-NV-89014/7181746_zpid/ ? In fact, pretty much every example can be easily explained, as detailed here:
Nor do you have to just take my word for it! As I said, this claim was in fact raised in front of a judge and guess how that went?

He took registered addresses. They were registered, and in the system. He found hundreds of them. He only showed a couple because it would have taken days....
You can't just say "Clerical error" when it is never fixed as they checked later.
So...you bringing up the Detroit ones?

 

[Megadeath]

He took registered addresses. They were registered, and in the system. He found hundreds of them. He only showed a couple because it would have taken days....
You can't just say "Clerical error" when it is never fixed as they checked later.
So...you bringing up the Detroit ones?

I have no intention of going through each specific address he mentions to figure out what the particular error was. You're quite able to find court transcripts where the complete lack of evidence for fraud is discussed. Why do you think that a failure to fix errors is proof of anything? I would assume that it's a case of only the registered voter being able to change their details, or it could simply be that minor errors on a couple hundred addresses aren't considered worth the time for them to investigate and update.

 

[Terthna]

That seems to be some chinese telephone game produced propaganda or other media shenanigans. I'm pretty sure you are referring to this one:

Abdulrahman al-Awlaki - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So, it wasn't Obama who said that, the airstrike wasn't even targeted at him, the reason why he died was that he happened to hang out in Yemen around AQ operatives who more likely than not were his dad's buddies. I'd say that hanging out within Hellfire blast radius of AQ operatives in Yemen dramatically increases one's chance of dying in a drone strike.

Wikipedia isn't exactly the most reliable source (what with ideologues editing the site so that it fits their narrative), so I tend to avoid it. That said, if what this article says is true, it's not like the kid was standing next to the actual target; he was killed while eating dinner at an outdoor restaurant. At best, that confirms that the drone strike program caused insane levels of collateral damage that nobody in their right mind would find acceptable. So better than ordering the assassination of an underage American citizen, but still pretty bad.

 

[Zachowon]

Wikipedia isn't exactly the most reliable source (what with ideologues editing the site so that it fits their narrative), so I tend to avoid it. That said, if what this article says is true, it's not like the kid was standing next to the actual target; he was killed while eating dinner at an outdoor restaurant. At best, that confirms that the drone strike program caused insane levels of collateral damage that nobody in their right mind would find acceptable. So better than ordering the assassination of an underage American citizen, but still pretty bad.

Easier then sending a team in, and was probably the smallest missle they had

 

[Terthna]

Easier then sending a team in, and was probably the smallest missle they had

Not the most accurate though; because according to Wikipedia the actual target, Ibrahim al-Banna, escaped unharmed. I'm sorry; but when you fail to kill the bad guy, and manage to take out innocent bystanders? That's not acceptable.

 

[Zachowon]

Not the most accurate though; because according to Wikipedia the actual target, Ibrahim al-Banna, escaped unharmed. I'm sorry; but when you fail to kill the bad guy, and manage to take out innocent bystanders? That's not acceptable.

Casualties happen.
That is literally the risk

 

[Marduk]

Wikipedia isn't exactly the most reliable source (what with ideologues editing the site so that it fits their narrative), so I tend to avoid it. That said, if what this article says is true, it's not like the kid was standing next to the actual target; he was killed while eating dinner at an outdoor restaurant. At best, that confirms that the drone strike program caused insane levels of collateral damage that nobody in their right mind would find acceptable. So better than ordering the assassination of an underage American citizen, but still pretty bad.

Considering the nature of operations like this, there is plenty of information that isn't public about this incident.
But consider few obvious questions to be asked here:
-What kind of coincidence is it that a guy just happens to be eating at the same restaurant at the same time as a ranking AQ operatives meetup being drone striked?
-When his dad was a ranking AQ operative who got drone striked before...
-For some reason this formally American citizen is spending his youth in Yemen of all places, in abovementioned company...

As such, i would say that it is regrettable in philosophical sense at most, but it is hard to call him a totally accidental bystander. The most likely scenario is that he was a young man being trained to inherit family connections in a world of people who get drone striked for good reasons.

 

[Terthna]

Casualties happen.
That is literally the risk

Yeah, well; when you take risks, there are consequences for failure. Innocent people are dead, and to make matters worse the target got away, so they died for nothing; nobody involved should be allowed to walk away from that unscathed, from the drone operator all the way up to the President.

Considering the nature of operations like this, there is plenty of information that isn't public about this incident.
But consider few obvious questions to be asked here:
-What kind of coincidence is it that a guy just happens to be eating at the same restaurant at the same time as a ranking AQ operatives meetup being drone striked?
-When his dad was a ranking AQ operative who got drone striked before...
-For some reason this formally American citizen is spending his youth in Yemen of all places, in abovementioned company...

As such, i would say that it is regrettable in philosophical sense at most, but it is hard to call him a totally accidental bystander. The most likely scenario is that he was a young man being trained to inherit family connections in a world of people who get drone striked for good reasons.

That sounds like a desperate attempt to absolve the military of guilt to me. Personally, I don't care why here was there; he was a kid, an American citizen no less, and there is no evidence of him having done anything wrong. He was an innocent bystander; end of discussion.

 

[Marduk]

That sounds like a desperate attempt to absolve the military of guilt to me. Personally, I don't care why here was there; he was a kid, an American citizen no less, and there is no evidence of him having done anything wrong. He was an innocent bystander; end of discussion.

That seems like a desperate attempt to use formalities and appeals to emotion to make him seem innocent.
Being raised by his terrorist father (fugitive from justice in USA and Yemen) and spending a big chunk of his formative years in Yemen, in his father's community, certainly did not instill a loyalty to USA and its constitution in him, so he was an American citizen in the technical, bureaucratic sense only.

He was not "a kid", he was a 16 year old teenager spending his youth in islamic terrorist circles, plenty of western soldiers and civilians were killed by such or even younger (and in not so distant past, they wore US uniforms too), so i would say that asserting his innocence on those grounds is completely independent of reality.

Seriously, what do you want, other than have some guilt to throw at US government?
Assurances that protegee sons of treasonous US citizens hiding in failed states suffer not even the slightest risk in attempts on the lives of their father's comrades at arms, even if it saves the latter? There is a debate if such level of sacrifice in pursuit of military objectives should be given even to unwilling hostages being used as human shields, and this case is certainly no more morally controversial than that - being someone training for a career involving holding such hostages at gunpoint.

Besides the point, in previous wars, especially those of industrial age, random children of far less controversial status have died by the hand of US and other western countries as collateral damage by hundreds, even thousands, and no one makes a hoopla about that, because you know, statistic.

Yeah, well; when you take risks, there are consequences for failure. Innocent people are dead, and to make matters worse the target got away, so they died for nothing; nobody involved should be allowed to walk away from that unscathed, from the drone operator all the way up to the President.

No country in the world fights wars with this attitude towards own soldiers, and if one tried, it would soon find itself short on soldiers.

 

[Zachowon]

Yeah, well; when you take risks, there are consequences for failure. Innocent people are dead, and to make matters worse the target got away, so they died for nothing; nobody involved should be allowed to walk away from that unscathed, from the drone operator all the way up to the President.




That sounds like a desperate attempt to absolve the military of guilt to me. Personally, I don't care why here was there; he was a kid, an American citizen no less, and there is no evidence of him having done anything wrong. He was an innocent bystander; end of discussion.

Lets put it this way. Evetrytime a drone fires, everytime a strike of some sort is called, be it by air or land, Lawyers are involved. Because a risk assessment is made. Said assessment accounts for civilian casualties that may result in it. Deem if it is a war crime or not, etc. This strike had to have that approval, especially by the host nation.

Also, how do we know he wasn't training to be like his father? A US Citizen doesn't mean shit when they are in a enemy country fighting for an enemy military. That is like saying "A US Citizen, 16, feld to Russia to join their military and died in fighting." Diffrence is we are saying specifically that theyjoined the mlitary.

SO a enlisted guy, 20 years old should be charged with something because everyone above him said it was fine? Including JAG? Host country leaders? etc?

That seems like a desperate attempt to use formalities and appeals to emotion to make him seem innocent.
Being raised by his terrorist father (fugitive from justice in USA and Yemen) and spending a big chunk of his formative years in Yemen, in his father's community, certainly did not instill a loyalty to USA and its constitution in him, so he was an American citizen in the technical, bureaucratic sense only.

He was not "a kid", he was a 16 year old teenager spending his youth in islamic terrorist circles, plenty of western soldiers and civilians were killed by such or even younger (and in not so distant past, they wore US uniforms too), so i would say that asserting his innocence on those grounds is completely independent of reality.

Seriously, what do you want, other than have some guilt to throw at US government?
Assurances that protegee sons of treasonous US citizens hiding in failed states suffer not even the slightest risk in attempts on the lives of their father's comrades at arms, even if it saves the latter? There is a debate if such level of sacrifice in pursuit of military objectives should be given even to unwilling hostages being used as human shields, and this case is certainly no more morally controversial than that - being someone training for a career involving holding such hostages at gunpoint.

Besides the point, in previous wars, especially those of industrial age, random children of far less controversial status have died by the hand of US and other western countries as collateral damage by hundreds, even thousands, and no one makes a hoopla about that, because you know, statistic.

No country in the world fights wars with this attitude towards own soldiers, and if one tried, it would soon find itself short on soldiers.

Yeah Marduk, good way to put it.

 

[Terthna]

That seems like a desperate attempt to use formalities and appeals to emotion to make him seem innocent.
Being raised by his terrorist father (fugitive from justice in USA and Yemen) and spending a big chunk of his formative years in Yemen, in his father's community, certainly did not instill a loyalty to USA and its constitution in him, so he was an American citizen in the technical, bureaucratic sense only.

He was not "a kid", he was a 16 year old teenager spending his youth in islamic terrorist circles, plenty of western soldiers and civilians were killed by such or even younger (and in not so distant past, they wore US uniforms too), so i would say that asserting his innocence on those grounds is completely independent of reality.

Seriously, what do you want, other than have some guilt to throw at US government?
Assurances that protegee sons of treasonous US citizens hiding in failed states suffer not even the slightest risk in attempts on the lives of their father's comrades at arms, even if it saves the latter? There is a debate if such level of sacrifice in pursuit of military objectives should be given even to unwilling hostages being used as human shields, and this case is certainly no more morally controversial than that - being someone training for a career involving holding such hostages at gunpoint.

Besides the point, in previous wars, especially those of industrial age, random children of far less controversial status have died by the hand of US and other western countries as collateral damage by hundreds, even thousands, and no one makes a hoopla about that, because you know, statistic.

No country in the world fights wars with this attitude towards own soldiers, and if one tried, it would soon find itself short on soldiers.

I want my country to quit fighting an endless "war" on terror. I want an end to military adventurism. I want my government to cease killing people in foreign countries for reasons that I hold to be utterly invalid, using methods that have a consistent track record of not only causing massive collateral damage, but also failing to take out the intended target(s). I want us to stop justifying and perpetuating the actions of terrorists, by proving we really are the monster they claim we are.

You want to victim blame? Fine; forget Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. He was far from the only unintended casualty from a drone strike; need I remind you of the time they ended up accidentally targeting a wedding? Or are you going to argue that all of those people were terrorists too?

Lets put it this way. Evetrytime a drone fires, everytime a strike of some sort is called, be it by air or land, Lawyers are involved. Because a risk assessment is made. Said assessment accounts for civilian casualties that may result in it. Deem if it is a war crime or not, etc. This strike had to have that approval, especially by the host nation.

Also, how do we know he wasn't training to be like his father? A US Citizen doesn't mean shit when they are in a enemy country fighting for an enemy military. That is like saying "A US Citizen, 16, feld to Russia to join their military and died in fighting." Diffrence is we are saying specifically that theyjoined the mlitary.

SO a enlisted guy, 20 years old should be charged with something because everyone above him said it was fine? Including JAG? Host country leaders? etc?

So nobody is responsible when innocent people die? Oh, I'm sorry; apparently there are no innocent people. How convenient.

 

[Zachowon]

I want my country to quit fighting an endless "war" on terror. I want an end to military adventurism. I want my government to cease killing people in foreign countries for reasons that I hold to be utterly invalid, using methods that have a consistent track record of not only causing massive collateral damage, but also failing to take out the intended target(s). I want us to stop justifying and perpetuating the actions of terrorists, by proving we really are the monster they claim we are.

You want to victim blame? Fine; forget Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. He was far from the only unintended casualty from a drone strike; need I remind you of the time they ended up accidentally targeting a wedding? Or are you going to argue that all of those people were terrorists too?




So nobody is responsible when innocent people die? Oh, I'm sorry; apparently there are no innocent people. How convenient.

Im not saying no one is responsible. But that is warfare for you. Civilian casualties are a risk that is taken into consideration for every operation. A risk assessment has to be written for a lot fo things, and for these it is generally one that involves a lot of rules.
For COIN, they generally don't just go "Oh he is there fire" It takes a while for them to do so. They most likely knew the kid was there as he had probably been there every damn day.

Wanna know what kinda casualties are expected for some operations? For AB units, 20% is okay during a training jump. during war time, 60%.

If you wanted nocivilian casualties in war, then we would never win a war

 

[Terthna]

Im not saying no one is responsible. But that is warfare for you. Civilian casualties are a risk that is taken into consideration for every operation. A risk assessment has to be written for a lot fo things, and for these it is generally one that involves a lot of rules.
For COIN, they generally don't just go "Oh he is there fire" It takes a while for them to do so. They most likely knew the kid was there as he had probably been there every damn day.

Wanna know what kinda casualties are expected for some operations? For AB units, 20% is okay during a training jump. during war time, 60%.

If you wanted nocivilian casualties in war, then we would never win a war

So explain to me then why they decided hitting a wedding, at which no known terrorists or those associated with terrorists were in attendance, was a good idea. Actually, why the hell are we even fighting a war to begin with? The September 11 attacks were almost twenty years ago, and we still have people in the Middle East?

 

[Zachowon]

So explain to me then why they decided hitting a wedding, at which no known terrorists or those associated with terrorists were in attendance, was a good idea. Actually, why the hell are we even fighting a war to begin with? The September 11 attacks were almost twenty years ago, and we still have people in the Middle East?

We went back to Iraq to deal with ISIS. That was always a Coalition thing and not solely US. A-stan also is coalition, but that is to deal with AQ/Taliban. Mainly US but has other nations invovled.

IDK the take behind the wedding but most likely had a reason or an issue on target.

 

[Terthna]

We went back to Iraq to deal with ISIS. That was always a Coalition thing and not solely US. A-stan also is coalition, but that is to deal with AQ/Taliban. Mainly US but has other nations invovled.

IDK the take behind the wedding but most likely had a reason or an issue on target.

"Went back"? We never left. As for the attack on the wedding, the only explanation I ever heard for that came from a human rights activist who interviewed local villagers two days after the strike, who suggested that they may have simply assumed that a significantly-sized group of people with guns in trucks were terrorists, without actually checking to see if they were; which kinda shoots your assertion that there's much thought put into these strikes out of the water.

 

[Zachowon]

"Went back"? We never left. As for the attack on the wedding, the only explanation I ever heard for that came from a human rights activist who interviewed local villagers two days after the strike, who suggested that they may have simply assumed that a significantly-sized group of people with guns in trucks were terrorists, without actually checking to see if they were; which kinda shoots your assertion that there's much thought put into these strikes out of the water.

We stayed to train thier forces but put more people there because of ISIS.

And @Panzerkraken can vouche. It isn't just "Shoot here" without information on it...

 

[LindyAF]

Not going to cry any tears over some jihadist abdul al-whateverthefuck, whether or not he's got a piece of paper claiming he's a "US citizen."

If muslims want to go back to fuck around and kill each other in some desert, good riddance. Don't really care what they get up to in the Middle East, and IMO far more of actual American's blood and treasure is being spent their than is justified. Besides the interest in keeping the price of oil low, most of our problems their are solved just by not letting them come here. And if they go back over there, doubly so.

 

[Marduk]

I want my country to quit fighting an endless "war" on terror. I want an end to military adventurism. I want my government to cease killing people in foreign countries for reasons that I hold to be utterly invalid, using methods that have a consistent track record of not only causing massive collateral damage, but also failing to take out the intended target(s). I want us to stop justifying and perpetuating the actions of terrorists, by proving we really are the monster they claim we are.

You want to victim blame? Fine; forget Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. He was far from the only unintended casualty from a drone strike; need I remind you of the time they ended up accidentally targeting a wedding? Or are you going to argue that all of those people were terrorists too?




So nobody is responsible when innocent people die? Oh, I'm sorry; apparently there are no innocent people. How convenient.

So lemme get this straight...
Out of all the imaginable arguments for US to quit "war on terror" in foreign lands, the best you can muster up is that it causes collateral damage there (like any war), is used as war propaganda by the enemies being targeted (what enemies doesn't), and it kills foreigners (like any normal war)?

I think the problem here is that this line argumentation is so ideologically oriented and so exhaustively overused by the left that it isn't appealing even to people who may have to at least some degree agreed with your intention, if they have issues with the current policy for independent reasons.

For example, you would be surprised to hear that a lot of the more nationalist kind of right is absolutely for withdrawal from Afghanistan. Not because civilians die, not because shady islamists get killed without trial, not because Taliban use it in propaganda, they couldn't give a damn about that stuff. Their argument is that it doesn't serve US interests, there is no reasonable plan of military action to reach victory, nevermind that there aren't even clearly defined victory conditions in the first place, while one thing is certain, this is as far as you can go as far as international and US political limitations are concerned when it comes to tackling the sources of problems in Afghanistan, while, as current situation shows, this limit is nowhere near enough to solve them in long term, while hardly having any major strategic interests in keeping that particular region stable on "life support" sponsored by US blood and money - after all, Afghanistan is surrounded by America's enemies, frenemies, and their respective client states, so if it goes to shit, it will be generally be them who will have a hot mess to deal with, and that sounds more like a feature than a bug. Some allies in Europe may be stupid enough to take it as a reason to invite millions of refugees from that hot mess with predictable consequences, but that's on them, no one is holding a gun to their heads and forcing them to do stupid moves like that.

 

[Captain X]

Also, how do we know he wasn't training to be like his father? A US Citizen doesn't mean shit when they are in a enemy country fighting for an enemy military. That is like saying "A US Citizen, 16, feld to Russia to join their military and died in fighting." Diffrence is we are saying specifically that theyjoined the mlitary.

The issue at heart here is the concept of due process, which is supposed to be guaranteed to American citizens. You and others keep glossing over this.

 

[Zachowon]

The issue at heart here is the concept of due process, which is supposed to be guaranteed to American citizens. You and others keep glossing over this.

And how do you recommend them getting thier due process when they have yet to come back to the US and they happen to be next to a target?