General Discussion

Fumesucker

(45,851 posts)

14. Emmanuel Golds.. err.. Al Qaeda rather is very useful to the powers that be..

Fri Jun 8, 2012, 09:13 PM

Jun 2012

A nebulous enemy that can always be used to provide justification of whatever particular piece of authoritarian overreach is being instigated at any given moment.

Al Qaeda is as likely to go away as "drugs" are likely to go away as a means of keeping the population reacting out of fear.

If you listen to the right wingers they are still scared of the Weathermen .

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

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

55 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Serious question: Which is worse -- hundreds of B-17s or 1 drone [View all] Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2012 OP

Please name the WAR drones are being used in. Vincardog Jun 2012 #1

President Obama seems to think it's a war. He certainly acts as if it is. Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2012 #7

Luckily the Constitution says PBO can not act without a Congressional declaration. The problem is Vincardog Jun 2012 #8

Typos aside I think you're aware of the AUMF from Sept 18, 2001 Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2012 #11

Please tell me when does the AUMF expire? Who or what has to surrender to end this FAUX war? Vincardog Jun 2012 #24

No AUMF or declaration of war has an expiration date. Why would you even ask that? Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2012 #28

"No AUMF has an expiration date"? When does this FAUX war end? Vincardog Jun 2012 #30

Just like any other war. Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2012 #31

WARS end with surrender. Who has to surrender in your mind to end this illegal "war"? Vincardog Jun 2012 #33

I think you're missing the point. randome Jun 2012 #35

Allowing this illegal AUMF allows for perpetual state of war. That was their GOAL. That Vincardog Jun 2012 #38

The laws of war throughout history have long recognized Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2012 #39

A war ends when sarisataka Jun 2012 #44

The UN certainly thinks its a war and will hold anyone participating accountable to the rules of war stevenleser Jun 2012 #36

The squadrons of B17s came to an end.. Fumesucker Jun 2012 #2

If AQ were ever truly broken Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2012 #10

Emmanuel Golds.. err.. Al Qaeda rather is very useful to the powers that be.. Fumesucker Jun 2012 #14

War is one thing, turning it into a Nintendo game is quite another. n/t 2on2u Jun 2012 #3

The B-17s were used as terror weapons upaloopa Jun 2012 #4

Agreed. ag_dude Jun 2012 #6

I wasn't making a value judgment just stating what I know as history. I wasn't there. upaloopa Jun 2012 #9

They accidentally flew across the English channel? Zanzoobar Jun 2012 #19

Actually, on Hitler's orders, deaniac21 Jun 2012 #51

Good question SoutherDem Jun 2012 #5

The problem with drones is that warfare didn't end when it was supposed to. Robb Jun 2012 #12

I don't care for drone warfare. But it's better than carpet bombing. Bake Jun 2012 #13

"The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic." Stalin Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2012 #15

Drones are the landmines of the 21st century rubluetoo Jun 2012 #16

Nice post. Interesting point. Welcome to DU :) nt Electric Monk Jun 2012 #23

A drone is nothing like a landmine (or any other persistent weapon). OneTenthofOnePercent Jun 2012 #42

Well since there are only a handful of B-17s and none are used as bombers... cherokeeprogressive Jun 2012 #17

The real debate is (or should be) is ANY military action needed? morningfog Jun 2012 #18

What did Eva Braun ever do? Zanzoobar Jun 2012 #20

Which is worse? sudopod Jun 2012 #21

We create new enemies every day. cwydro Jun 2012 #22

To me, it's a question of due process. dawg Jun 2012 #25

Come on, man, Colbert already covered this malthaussen Jun 2012 #54

I don't think treating Afghanistan and the Second World War as equivalent is very useful. (nt) Posteritatis Jun 2012 #26

Whichever one is dropping bombs on me. Zanzoobar Jun 2012 #27

How about we do neither? n/t 99Forever Jun 2012 #29

1. Why does it have to be either/or? Blue_Tires Jun 2012 #32

Von Clausewitz wrote that the purpose of war LanternWaste Jun 2012 #34

the targets is the issue Enrique Jun 2012 #37

"Why" is the question. Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2012 #40

how about "illegal"? Enrique Jun 2012 #41

I think there's plenty of room for apprehension about targeting US citizens Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2012 #43

many of the laws were a response to WWII Enrique Jun 2012 #45

The 4th Geneva Convention was after WWII jeff47 Jun 2012 #47

It's legal. Congress wrote an over-broad AUMF. jeff47 Jun 2012 #48

Are you claiming we knew who 1M Japanese were when we firebombed Tokyo? (nt) jeff47 Jun 2012 #46

are you claiming we can drop nukes on Pakistan and Yemen? Enrique Jun 2012 #49

Technically, we can. Nothing in the AUMF says we can't. jeff47 Jun 2012 #50

Crap it used to be even worse then people think..to hell with the Germans, EX500rider Jun 2012 #52

And of course, we didn't make a dent in the sub pens. malthaussen Jun 2012 #55

Ball-bearings are strategic resources malthaussen Jun 2012 #53