OCinBuffalo Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 (edited) Read/watch this. (Sorry) This is literally enemy propaganda, which gives aid and comfort to the enemy, in a time of war. That is the definition of traitor, as per our laws and Constitution. That Air Force commander is therefore within his rights to call the FBI, and have these people arrested for treason. His oath clearly states "enemies foreign and domestic". These people, by their obvious act of sedition, by attempting to influence him not to follow his lawful orders, in war-time, have defined themselves as domestic enemies. Thus, he is honor-bound, and has a duty to respond. And, these people are only entitled to a trial, and not summary judgement = hanging/firing squad, if a court finds extenuating circumstances. But....nobody will do anything, and CNN and MSNBC won't be scorned for running this propaganda. Nothing will happen. The worst part: these Fs are completely clueless as to what war means/is. War is, by definition, IS domination of others. That is the task of every officer: to see to it that the enemy is dominated. Hell, the F'ing mission statement of the entire US Army is this: The mission of the Infantry is to close with the enemy by means of fire and maneuver in order to destroy or capture him, or to repel his assault with fire, close combat, and counterattack. The Infantry will engage the enemy with combined arms in all operational environments to bring about his defeat. The close combat fight is not unique to the Infantry. And if that wasn't enough to define exactly WTF the military is about how about we get even more specific? Section 1-1 of the "Fundamentals of Infantry Platoon and Squad Operations", from the same link: 1-1. The Infantry's primary role is close combat, which may occur in any type of mission, in any theater, or environment. Characterized by extreme violence and physiological shock, close combat is callous and unforgiving. Its dimensions are measured in minutes and meters, and its consequences are final. Close combat stresses every aspect of the physical, mental, and spiritual features of the human dimension. To this end, Infantrymen are specially selected, trained, and led. This is right out of damn book, on the first damn page. If these or any other morons bothered to know anything about war, or the military, whatsoever, they'd see how preposterous this letter is. Officers are literally following "the employee handbook" no different than any other job, and the employee handbook itself literally speaks to the "human dimension". So, it's not like any military officer needs to be reminded by a bunch of ingrates about his humanity, or the human dimension. He's already been trained, thank you. And finally this should be addressed to the policy makers like Obama, not the implementors, which is WHY it can ONLY be defined and as enemy propoganda. It's intent is to undermine our military, and attempt to get them to refuse to follow their lawful orders. That? That is unmitigated treason. Edited March 24, 2015 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 What's funny is that they're addressing a unit commander. Used to be they'd protest the President directly...but I guess this isn't Obama's fault, even though the White House approves every drone strike. And it's not treason, you bloviating mutt. It's just idiots expressing an opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 (edited) I don't understand why drone attacks are considered worse than regular aircraft attacks. Is it because we're not putting American lives in danger? Edited March 25, 2015 by unbillievable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 I don't understand why drone attacks are considered worse than regular aircraft attacks. Is it because we're not putting American lives in danger? Mostly how they're used. Usage often dances on the line between "military action" and "assassination." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 I don't understand why drone attacks are considered worse than regular aircraft attacks. Is it because we're not putting American lives in danger? Not putting lives in danger means they are much more likely to use them and in the eyes of those that think its wrong, use them gratuitously. Its just so easy, they are afraid the military is getting carried away Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Not putting lives in danger means they are much more likely to use them and in the eyes of those that think its wrong, use them gratuitously. Its just so easy, they are afraid the military that King Obama is getting carried away Fixed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Mostly how they're used. Usage often dances on the line between "military action" and "assassination." in any war they all walk a fine line. A sniper at 1.5 miles away - military action or targeted assassination? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 in any war they all walk a fine line. A sniper at 1.5 miles away - military action or targeted assassination? A sniper at 1.5 miles away is an incredible feat. A sniper at any distance is a human act. There is a human looking down the scope at another human being. There is a human pulling the trigger A drone attack is a dehumanized desensitized video game. It's some guy looking at a monitor pressing Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A Select Start Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 A sniper at 1.5 miles away - military action or targeted assassination? It's been open to debate. But I think you know that. Personally...anything that reduces collateral damage is okay by me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts