Trump's First Counterterrorism Operation: At Least 15 Women and Children Dead / One US Commando - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51751301]It says in the article that he was persuaded into authorizing the operation. Not all the blame lies on him. Someone still brought it too his desk and convinced him to sign off on it. I can appreciate criticizing Trump all day long, but at least focus on legitimate shit. Every president has signed off on an operation that has gone wrong or was too risky to justify itself. For gods sake, Obama signed off on the Bin Laden assassination mission and we lost a prototype/highly-secret helicopter in the operation.[/QUOTE] I would say those things were obamas responsibility too. Just because it's uncomfortable doesn't mean the definition of "responsibility" has changed.

[QUOTE=Saxon;51751296]Actually I can The Obama administration sat on it for months because of how high risk it was. I imagine Trump ordering it because of his heavy handed get things done attitude[/QUOTE] you might imagine too much.

[QUOTE=DOG-GY;51751315]So he's absolved because he was mindlessly persuaded? I never said anything about whether or not previous operations were justified. Just that it's their responsibility and that they should be held accountable.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying he's absolved, I'm saying he's not directly responsible for a mission gone bad. He should hold some accountability for it, but you need to understand that he's not directly responsible because he authorized a mission he was given a 5 minute briefing on, then had to be convinced to authorize it. [editline]30th January 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51751344]I would say those things were obamas responsibility too. Just because it's uncomfortable doesn't mean the definition of "responsibility" has changed.[/QUOTE] I disagree. Obama, or any president, isn't responsible for other people's fuck ups. The reason that helicopter was lost was because of bad intelligence. The wall was said to be shorter than it actually was, and the helicopter hit it when it was landing and was unflyable as a result.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51751301]For gods sake, Obama signed off on the Bin Laden assassination mission and we lost a prototype/highly-secret helicopter in the operation.[/QUOTE] You're saying we shouldn't criticize presidents for when their orders as commander in chief go wrong while also criticizing that the helicopter was lost in that operation? It's one thing to say things go wrong, that's true. None of us are saying what happened is 100% the fault of the president. But there has to be some accountability for a decision's consequences.

[QUOTE=Super Muffin;51751384]You're saying we shouldn't criticize presidents for when their orders as commander in chief go wrong while also criticizing the helicopter lost in that operation? ... What?[/QUOTE] Nope. My Obama bit was a comparison where he received little to no criticizing on that operation, even though that helicopter was destroyed and pieces of it were handed over to Chinese intelligence officials by the Pakistan government, which is a big deal. Why should Obama be at fault for something he was assured would go properly, then didn't? Same deal with Trump

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51751377]I'm not saying he's absolved, I'm saying he's not directly responsible for a mission gone bad. He should hold some accountability for it, but you need to understand that he's not directly responsible because he authorized a mission he was given a 5 minute briefing on, then had to be convinced to authorize it.[/QUOTE] So Obama gives it months of judgement and decides not to, while Trump gives it "5 minutes" (please cite this) and gives it the go ahead. But we should give him a pass because he's not the boots on the ground? Hmmm

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51751396]Why should Obama be at fault for something he was assured would go properly, then didn't? Same deal with Trump[/QUOTE] Because Trump was told it had a high chance of [I]not[/I] going properly?

Maybe he'll get a nobel peace prize for it like Obama.

[QUOTE=moffe;51751182]The implication that Donald Trump is personally responsible for the civilian casualties and the dead SEAL is laughable, there were numerous operations with results just like these under every president the last 30 years. There is an enormous amount of shit Trump is directly responsible for but the results of this operation is not one of them, and implying it is is just being intellectualy dishonest and weakening the case against trump.[/QUOTE] To reiterate: [url=http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/02/politics/donald-trump-terrorists-families/]"The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families."[/url] He said this. I don't recall any other president in the last 30 years saying something like this during a public interview and being totally unashamed and serious about it. He deserves all the flak in the world for this. It's entirely legitimate given his rhetoric. Not bringing this fact up would be plain-ass stupid.

Can we be clear that this casualtie count is based on the words of an anonymous Yemeni official.

[QUOTE=moffe;51751182]The implication that Donald Trump is personally responsible for the civilian casualties and the dead SEAL is laughable, there were numerous operations with results just like these under every president the last 30 years. There is an enormous amount of shit Trump is directly responsible for but the results of this operation is not one of them, and implying it is is just being intellectualy dishonest and weakening the case against trump.[/QUOTE] Initially I agreed with this point. Trump isn't doing anything Obama, Bush, or Clinton didn't do. Sometimes they sign off on operations in foreign countries that, unfortunately, end with collateral damage and friendly losses. But I do think you have to consider the mindset of the man. He has before shown a definite lack of foresight when it comes to targeting terrorists and their families and has used a much more urgent call to action than his predecessors. It could be possible that this operation wouldn't have been greenlit under other presidents who were more conservative in their approach to using special forces.

I won't deny that the fact that a commando and civilians died is terrible. If it's true that these kinds of operations have gone bad under plenty of past presidents, then I'd much rather we spend our energy fighting against things that are undeniably Trump's fault and exclusive to him. Like the wall, or the Muslim country ban, or the fact that Bannon has any authority over anything.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51751548]Can we be clear that this casualtie count is based on the words of an anonymous Yemeni official.[/QUOTE] So, it's about as trustworthy as a White House statement right now? Gotcha.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;51751666]Initially I agreed with this point. Trump isn't doing anything Obama, Bush, or Clinton didn't do. Sometimes they sign off on operations in foreign countries that, unfortunately, end with collateral damage and friendly losses. But I do think you have to consider the mindset of the man. He has before shown a definite lack of foresight when it comes to targeting terrorists and their families and has used a much more urgent call to action than his predecessors. It could be possible that this operation wouldn't have been greenlit under other presidents who were more conservative in their approach to using special forces.[/QUOTE] In addition, Obama, Bush, Clinton, and every other president [I]are also[/I] directly responsible for all operations they order. Their job is to weigh the risks, primarily what amount of sacrifice of life is worth accomplishing that objective. You could go on a Bill and Ted's adventure through history and you would not find a single president who wouldn't tell you the same thing. They must reconcile that fact in order to be a leader of a nation. Asserting that they are not responsible because they didn't pull the literal trigger is not only short-sighted, it's dangerous.

blaming trump seems a little excessive here

[QUOTE=Swebonny;51751325]Less a Trump issue and more an USA issue.[/QUOTE] Wrong. Trump authorized it. He authorized it without even knowing what he was doing. [editline]30th January 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=mchapra;51751894]blaming trump seems a little excessive here[/QUOTE] He made the decision to do it not a WEEK after being in office. He is 100% responsible.

Okay, so how about instead of playing the partisan blame game (i.e "Can't blame trump because similar things happened under Obama/Bush/whatever"), let's not drink the koolaid and agree that every single civilian death is a tragedy and rationalizing it should be much harder than it turned out to be. From my perspective we've reached a point where it appears rational to keep these operations going, since stopping them would cause some immediate damage to us. Over a long enough time space, however, I think our actions amplify these problems and we've more or less reached the endless war dystopia where no one blinks over the numbing frequency of these events. Care to guess how much blood is on our hands, even over the last 40 years? That's apparently very difficult to estimate and that's terrible. For more backing to this argument, I was thinking about our involvement with almost all of Latin America, the continuous funding and arming of violent groups such as the Mujahideen and many others in the Middle East, our arming of Sadame Hussein, and our general ability to destabilize areas and then justify military operations there to "help them". Also, Trump is famously manipulable and often favors the last option shown to him. He's the first president who was neither a military person nor in law, and that doesn't excuse the fact that he has to make intelligent decisions on matters he knows nothing about - that just means he's arrogant and doesn't know what he doesn't know.

[QUOTE=DOG-GY;51751258]The president is commander in chief of the military.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry to hear that suddenly president must be a military tactical genius once he's on the throne.

[QUOTE=mchapra;51751894]blaming trump seems a little excessive here[/QUOTE] The raid had been put off from the previous administration because it was risky with not much to gain. Then some bumbling fool steps in and gives it the go ahead. The bumbling fool is Trump. He's not fit to be making those kind of decisions. Too reckless, too immature, too stupid.

[QUOTE=DoctorSalt;51752129] From my perspective we've reached a point where it appears rational to keep these operations going, since stopping them would cause some immediate damage to us. Over a long enough time space, however, I think our actions amplify these problems and we've more or less reached the endless war dystopia where no one blinks over the numbing frequency of these events.[/QUOTE] I remember when 300 civilian deaths in one month was considered a tragedy early on in the Iraq war And then 4 years on it was perfectly normal and nobody cared The same shit is happening with drone strikes, only with a much smaller scale and with the USA being directly responsible for them. There is another huge and fucking disturbing difference, too - the collateral is justified almost every time. If 100 people are killed at a wedding, they are all immediately declared enemy combatants and the mission a success, and the number of actual possible combatants is dialed back from there after the casualty reports come in. Don't expect any of these reports to be anywhere near accurate at all, anyway, since any adult man killed in a drone strike will continue to be declared a combatant despite what their actual intentions were. They could have been a civilian walking by a building when it was attacked, and since they are one of 16 dead men on the ground, they are roped in with the rest to buff the list of dead enemies, even if only ten were actually combatants. We really are in a fucking dystopia. There is no value to human life to anyone in power.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51751780]So, it's about as trustworthy as a White House statement right now? Gotcha.[/QUOTE] If you want to say that neither are trustworthy, then sure. The point being that it's just plain silly to trust its accuracy.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51751280]Yeah based on your description how could he have any involvement at all It's not like he was briefed and made a choice.[/QUOTE] cool so when are you going to shit on carter for approving Operation Eagle Claw, Clinton for approving the police action in Somalia that led to Black Hawk Down, or Obama for the assassination of Osama? All operations went wrong somehow but apparently it's only Trump's fault for approving a mission that went wrong. Trump is not a prophet, he was briefed and made a decision. This decision didn't have the best outcome. What could he do?

[QUOTE=CruelAddict;51752849]I'm sorry to hear that suddenly president must be a military tactical genius once he's on the throne.[/QUOTE] would you like to be serious

[QUOTE=CruelAddict;51752849]I'm sorry to hear that suddenly president must be a military tactical genius once he's on the throne.[/QUOTE] No, He absolutely shouldn't have to be But he should listen to the people who [B]are[/B] in fact military tactical genius's and hire only ones that are competent and sane he should also have at least a hint of an idea of the consequences of screwing up. every single civilian death strengthens the enemies cause. even if it was 100% unavoidable. Even if it was 100% going to happen and you would have been worse off pulling out. It's still going to make things worse.

If Obama is going to be blamed for every civilian casualty from every drone strike he ever ordered, I'm going to blame Trump for this shit.

[QUOTE=Banned?;51754273]If Obama is going to be blamed for every civilian casualty from every drone strike he ever ordered, I'm going to blame Trump for this shit.[/QUOTE] Except the media didn't talk about the civilian kill count for obama's drones other than unusual cases.

[QUOTE=Svinnik;51754289]Except the media didn't talk about the civilian kill count for obama's drones other than unusual cases.[/QUOTE] There was a lot of talk of just that actually. [editline]31st January 2017[/editline] Also going back to what I said earlier, Obama owned the fact that his decisions could result in this kind of thing (like an effective leader must) and was transparent to the public about it. Not only setting up government regulation and oversight on how drone strikes are utilized but also pushing transparency and public accountability: [media]https://youtu.be/Fi1t_aqhCks[/media] [editline]31st January 2017[/editline] At 9:35 he begins to lead into this major point (please watch for context): "I don't have the luxury of just not doing anything, and then being able to stand back and feel as if my conscious is completely clear. I have to make decisions, because there are folks out there who are genuinely trying to kill us. And would be happy to blow this entire room, without any compunction. And are actively trying to find ways to do it."

[media]https://twitter.com/samueloakford/status/826293010908446721[/media]

[url]https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/world/middleeast/yemen-raid-women-qaeda.html?referer=https://www.google.com/[/url] If this is true fuck em. If you have a weapon your going down man, women, or child.

This pisses me the fuck off, but it's honestly no different than what Obama did.