• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Sources: U.S. kills Cole suspect (CIA drone launched missile)

K

kherman

Golden Member
LINKIFIED

Well it might be false info since, to my knowledge, the CIA doesn't have weapons on the drones. The army's drones have weapons??? Am I wrong???

CIA is for intelegence gathering??

Anyways..............
 
Originally posted by: kherman
LINKIFIED

Well it might be false info since, to my knowledge, the CIA doesn't have weapons on the drones. The army's drones have weapons??? Am I wrong???

CIA is for intelegence gathering??

Anyways..............
Click to expand...
Well they gathered their intelligence together and hit the target🙂

 
Originally posted by: kherman
LINKIFIED

Well it might be false info since, to my knowledge, the CIA doesn't have weapons on the drones. The army's drones have weapons??? Am I wrong???

CIA is for intelegence gathering??

Anyways..............
Click to expand...

Would you feel better if they said they wanted an extreme close up picture, so they mounted a very small camera on the Hellfire missile so as to get a closer view?
 
I read that article last night, I still am baffled as to why they needed to launch an anti-tank missle to take out a car? Lil overkill much? lol Just got me thinking when they said they "found a piece of his leg near the vehicle" damn
 
They identified one guy buy a mark on his leg.... that was found laying a few yards from the wreckage. And people say video games are no good. Who do you think was flying that drone.
 
1. I thought we quit the assination business.
2. Judge, Jury, Excutioner.
3. Shoot now ask question later.

I am all for rounding up terriorist. But I still believe in innocent untill proven guilty, that is the American system; Our way of life.
 
Originally posted by: CurtCold
I read that article last night, I still am baffled as to why they needed to launch an anti-tank missle to take out a car? Lil overkill much? lol Just got me thinking when they said they "found a piece of his leg near the vehicle" damn
Click to expand...

What? You think we have a "anti-commercial-grade-car" missle? It did the job, didnt it?
 
Originally posted by: Blindman
1. I thought we quit the assination business.
2. Judge, Jury, Excutioner.
3. Shoot now ask question later.

I am all for rounding up terriorist. But I still believe in innocent untill proven guilty, that is the American system; Our way of life.
Click to expand...
Cool, next time we'll send you in to arrest them. I guess you missed the part in the article where is said that the last attempt to arrest them resulted in him escaping and 12 security forces getting killed.

 
Originally posted by: Mookow
Originally posted by: CurtCold
I read that article last night, I still am baffled as to why they needed to launch an anti-tank missle to take out a car? Lil overkill much? lol Just got me thinking when they said they "found a piece of his leg near the vehicle" damn
Click to expand...

What? You think we have a "anti-commercial-grade-car" missle? It did the job, didnt it?
Click to expand...

isn't it more of a dinky rocket then a missle? thats why they can be carried by a dinky drone.

i could be wrong🙂
 
Originally posted by: Blindman
1. I thought we quit the assination business.
2. Judge, Jury, Excutioner.
3. Shoot now ask question later.

I am all for rounding up terriorist. But I still believe in innocent untill proven guilty, that is the American system; Our way of life.
Click to expand...

OTOH, trying to capture this guy would likely have cost us a couple of servicemen. So, you would essentially be condemming several people who havent done anything wrong, for the purpose of putting a guy on trial. A trial for which it would be hard to find an impartial jury for.

Let me put it this way... if you were the British, in 1943, and you knew Himmler was going to be at X place, which was undefended by AA and fighters, at Y time, would you have either:

-Sent several squadrons of heavy bombers to turn place X into a barren waste land, or
-Sent in some of your people to try and capture Hitler and take him back to England for trial.

The USA has sent aircraft to kill people we dont like before (people who had declared war on us, although in my example it isnt a holy war)... just look at what happened to Yamamoto.
 
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Blindman
1. I thought we quit the assination business.
2. Judge, Jury, Excutioner.
3. Shoot now ask question later.

I am all for rounding up terriorist. But I still believe in innocent untill proven guilty, that is the American system; Our way of life.
Click to expand...
Cool, next time we'll send you in to arrest them. I guess you missed the part in the article where is said that the last attempt to arrest them resulted in him escaping and 12 security forces getting killed.
Click to expand...

True, that... These people are NOT Americans, they are willing to blow themselves up fighting our way of life. There really isn't anything you can do with these people other than to kill them.
 
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Blindman
1. I thought we quit the assination business.
2. Judge, Jury, Excutioner.
3. Shoot now ask question later.

I am all for rounding up terriorist. But I still believe in innocent untill proven guilty, that is the American system; Our way of life.
Click to expand...
Cool, next time we'll send you in to arrest them. I guess you missed the part in the article where is said that the last attempt to arrest them resulted in him escaping and 12 security forces getting killed.
Click to expand...

True, that... These people are NOT Americans, they are willing to blow themselves up fighting our way of life. There really isn't anything you can do with these people other than to kill them.
Click to expand...


Hahaha.. I bet old Saddam is sweating it out every time he goes outside. Those drones are a great weapon. I give them two thumbs up!
 
Err its just a thought. When I first read it yesterday that was the idea that came to mind. Just we arnt in the assination business.

And there was no trial before the excution, some judge should have approved it, would have more justification.


And since this was done "assination", the CIA should have keep quite about it because I dont remember the rule has changed.
 
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
Originally posted by: Mookow
Originally posted by: CurtCold
I read that article last night, I still am baffled as to why they needed to launch an anti-tank missle to take out a car? Lil overkill much? lol Just got me thinking when they said they "found a piece of his leg near the vehicle" damn
Click to expand...

What? You think we have a "anti-commercial-grade-car" missile? It did the job, didnt it?
Click to expand...

isn't it more of a dinky rocket then a missle? thats why they can be carried by a dinky drone.

i could be wrong🙂
Click to expand...

Hahahahahaha... NO. The Hellfire missile is (last time I checked) the standard AT missile for an Apache helicopter. It might not have long range or be all that big, but it is a full fledged anti-tank missile.

Here are a few shots...

Someone has incoming

On target

You have a funny definition of the word "dinky"
 
Originally posted by: Blindman
Err its just a thought. When I first read it yesterday that was the idea that came to mind. Just we arnt in the assination business.

And there was no trial before the excution, some judge should have approved it, would have more justification.


And since this was done "assination", the CIA should have keep quite about it because I dont remember the rule has changed.
Click to expand...

I wouldnt call it assassination per se. When you are at war with someone (the "war on terrorism"), their leaders are fair game for being killed.

I dont think a trial would be legal anyway without the accused there to defend themselves.
 
Originally posted by: Blindman
Err its just a thought. When I first read it yesterday that was the idea that came to mind. Just we arnt in the assination business.

And there was no trial before the excution, some judge should have approved it, would have more justification.


And since this was done "assination", the CIA should have keep quite about it because I dont remember the rule has changed.
Click to expand...



Rules? What Rules? We don't need no steenkin rules! The CIA and before them, the OSS, have been assassinating enemy combatants and operatives for ever. I think you are confusing the "No assassinating heads of State" rules. Of course we got around that in Viet Nam, Iran and Chile by having operatives or members of those countries Armed services do the job for us.
 
Originally posted by: Blindman
Err its just a thought. When I first read it yesterday that was the idea that came to mind. Just we arnt in the assination business.

And there was no trial before the excution, some judge should have approved it, would have more justification.


And since this was done "assination", the CIA should have keep quite about it because I dont remember the rule has changed.
Click to expand...

In Afghanistan several months ago, we had a vehicle in our sites that we were sure had Al Queda leadership in it. We didn't shoot it because the operators were not sure of the legality of the situation. You may recall that Rumsfeld was in a rage about this. It turns out later that teh lawyers said it would have been legal.

I'm not sure of the actual timeline but President Bush has signed a "finding" directing the CIA to conduct "lethal, covert operations" against bin Laden and Al Queda. If this was a CIA op I'm sure this was the finding they were operating under. The lawyers have also weighed in on this and decided it does not violate the laws prohibiting political assasination because 1. We are at war and 2. those laws do not apply to terrorists.
 
This was no different than bombing an enemy HQ to take out the command structure. It was not an assasination, it was a surgical strike during a time of war against a declared enemy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top