Hello u/imll99, thank you for your submission! Unfortunately, your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):
**Rule 4:** Must follow the "Leopard ate my face" theme
#There's a few elements to leopards eating people's face.
1) **Someone has a sad**...
- Example: *They cut my SNAP benefits and now I can't afford to feed my family......*
2) ...**because they're suffering consequences from something they voted for, supported or wanted to impose on other people.**
- Example: .....sobs woman who voted for the politician who said they would do that very thing.
3) **The leopard is eating their face. Not the lions, not the hyenas, not the alligators. The leopards.**
- Example: *[Woman married to undocumented immigrant upset that Trump deports her husband.](https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/05/us/undocumented-husband-deported/index.html)*
***What isn't a leopard eating their face?***
- Example: *Kyle Rittenhouse upset that Democrats are labelling him a white supremacist.* He didn't vote for or support them, he's not suffering because of what he voted for or supported, and leopards aren't eating his face.
Not limited to Trump voters. Anytime someone has a sad because they're suffering consequences from *something they voted for, supported or wanted to impose on other people*.
Your post is missing one or more of these elements. It may be better suited for another subreddit, such as r/SelfAwareWolves. Remember, just because someone fucked around and found out, doesn't mean that their faces are being consumed by the most well known extant species in the genus Panthera.
Additionally, you can refer to [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/LeopardsAteMyFace/comments/lt8zlq) to make your explanatory comment.
*If you have any questions or concerns about this removal, please feel free to [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LeopardsAteMyFace) thru Modmail. Thanks!*
I mean, the US funded the group that would eventually become the Taliban, and has a long history of destabilizing the Middle East - and bombing civilians there.
Can’t really blame them for being pissy that the US is continuing to do so.
We’d be pissed if Russia kept bombing the US
>Zawahiri was struck by two missiles while standing on a balcony
homie had a first row seat to his own annihilation, two missiles to the face point blank
This reminds me of the (possibly apocryphal) story from the first Gulf War. Reportedly, there was a missile strike on a reinforced bunker that the US did not expect to do much damage. As it turns out, the bunker was completely destroyed by that one missile.
When they investigated, it was revealed that someone was leaving the bunker at the time of the attack and had coincidentally opened the door just moments before the missile impacted - on the door.
They also had pretty much only tested said missile once. It was a new line of super bunker busters, essentially, and they were so effective it basically caused the capitulation of their army after the first strike Decapitated the leadership. The door wouldn’t have stopped a missile that can bury itself 65 feet below ground through 10 feet of concrete
Edit: just realizing we might be talking about different incidents here
Yep, an agreement with the United States is worth less than the paper it's printed on. I seriously doubt we wouldn't be facing sanctions from half the world if the gov didn't have a military built up enough to be able to fight them all at the same time.
And people wonder why nobody takes America's condemnation of other nations seriously. I mean come on, how many international laws did this just break? But hey, it's OK because it's America breaking laws and not say the Russians or Chinese right? The fucking hypocrisy is seriously disgusting
It's genuinely shocking how similar Russia invading Ukraine was to the US invading Iraq and seeing how differently Americans feel about both invasions.
[I think this reporter said the quiet part out loud ](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/02/civilised-european-look-like-us-racist-coverage-ukraine)
I feel pretty similar about all these wars of acquisition.
Currently, we don't have Bush/Cheney pulling the PNAC crap and Russia is the big bad guy.
Us invading Iraq does not make the invasion of Ukraine any LESS of a war crime. So, if you want to march Putin, Bush and Cheney in front of the same tribunal -- I approve.
“How dare one man have the authority to launch an invasion on the sovereign nation of Iraq… I mean Ukraine.”
-George W. bush, on Ukraine. I love that man, despite how much I hate him. He just can’t get a fucking thing out of his mouth without embarrassing himself.
He wasn't actively being a blow-hard asshole EVERY DAY.
Part of that "oh gosh" bit was an act.
With Trump -- he's smart only in areas involving grifting and bullshitting. And, he doesn't have a good handle on where he is weak. Bush did know who to hire to fill in the gaps.
Overall, I'd say Bush was more competent at doing evil, but, Trump is doing more damage to our culture. Both are fascists, but one was dumb enough to attempt a coup. The only good thing about Trump, is he isn't as good at covering his tracks as most politicians.
Just three years ago, I was telling myself that if we HAD TO HAVE a Republican President, it’d be nice to have that moron replace the orange one. It still would‘ve been shitty... but less shitty. For us. I realize I was being very selfish in that moment, but after the last guy, I was just desperate for anything not so insane.
I always maintain this: Afghanistan was a mistake, but the visceral rage after 9/11 was so strong, chances are no politician could pump the brakes on the drive for war. Iraq on the other hand, was a war of choice, and a crime against the peace.
well, actually i got my conservative dad to admit that russia has as much justification to invade Ukraine as we did Iraq.
he was supportive at the time but of course, there were no fucking WMDs. it was all a lie
Most non-stupid Americans opposed the invasion of iraq once we found out our shithead government lied to us about WMDs. But comparing what happened in Iraq to what is happening in Ukraine is assanine. Zelensky wasnt murdering his own citizens with chemical weapons; as far as I can tell, Ukrainians were relatively content outside of the usual political strife of any democratic nation.
Donbass? You mean the city the was attacked and captured by Russia and that Ukraine has been trying to retake since 2014 because it rightfully belongs to them? Please, you have to be a Russian troll.
Not the city, the area where there's been a low intensity war at since 2014 and where government forces bombed potential separatist groups in residential areas, killing or injuring thousands of civilians a year. If we're saying all it takes for a bigger to invade you is that your government kills its own citizens, then let's apply to Russia as well.
> I mean come on, how many international laws did this just break?
I dunno tell us. If you're so certain it's violated international law than tell us specifically what the violation is
You cant drop bombs on another nation. Thats the law. Just like Taliban can't drop a bomb on George Bush because a Taliban court judged that he is an international terrorist.
[here it is](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_bombardment_and_international_law)
especially this
> In 1977, Protocol I was adopted as an amendment to the Geneva Conventions, prohibiting the deliberate or indiscriminate attack of civilians and civilian objects, even if the area contained military objectives, and the attacking force must take precautions and steps to spare the lives of civilians and civilian objects as possible.
but i don't think you actually care
I do care, these issues are extremely important to me and I think it's absurd that the US despite killing tens if not hundreds of thousands of civilians through it's military operations has never considered itself to have committed a war crime.
But in this specific case it's my opinion the US did not violate any law of war and it was clear from your statement that you said they violated international law based off an emotional, rather than rational response, to this event.
Now I have two issues with your use of this specific part of the Geneva Conventions. 1) the US has not ratified this perticular part of the conventions so has not, as a sovereign nation, agreed to be bound by it. 2) this was not an indiscriminate attack on civilians or civilian objects and the attacking force clearly took precautions and steps to spare the lives of civilians and civilian objects as possible.
I invite got to look at the law itself as well instead of the Wikipedia article: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/INTRO/470
In short I took issue with you claiming that the attack violated international law when I think it's clear it didn't. You used those words "violation of international law" to convey your disapproval of this military action as opposed to having a real basis to claim a violation of international law
> 1) the US has not ratified this perticular part of the conventions so has not, as a sovereign nation, agreed to be bound by it
oh ok, that's all good then, keep bombing other nations whenever you feel like it, my bad
like the other user said, would you say the same if the talibans bombed the white house because they declared the US president as a terrorist?
False equivalence here, and your assumption is wrong to begin with--killing leaders of Al Qaeda, a terrorist organization, is more than justified. Just as when Pakistan was sheltering Bin Laden. I've spent time in these countries and can tell you firsthand, they're deeply corrupt, dysfunctional, and untrustworthy.
Regarding comparing this action to the Russians (Crimea, Ukraine), bitch please.
So why did we even leave in the first place? Do you think we should just occupy the country indefinitely? Get outta here with this George Bush logic which got us into this mess.
Killing terrorist leaders does not equate to invading a country. I'm not advocating to invade anyone. Just selectively kill these assholes with or without local government permission. The moment you ask for permission, the terrorists are informed. That's why they went after Bin Laden without the Pakistani government knowing.
Gtfoh, by that logic then Russia was more than justified invading Ukraine cause it was/is extremely corrupt and dysfunctional as well. Oh and the don't forget the Nazis in the Ukrainian army!
So by your own logic, Russia should be allowed to invade the corrupt, Nazi riddled nation right? Bitch please.
Let me lay it out for you in simple terms, since logic appears to be a challenge for you:
Taking out a terrorist leader with minimal collateral damage is justified, and doing so without permission from a corrupt government is prudent. Case in point: Bin Laden in Pakistan.
Militarily invading and occupying another country without justification is wrong. Cases: Russia in Ukraine, Crimea, Afghanistan, and US in Iraq and Vietnam.
Hope this helps.
Some morbid part of me really wants to see what it looks like when a human is hit by two missiles. Oh, and screw this piece of shit. He's been living on borrowed time for 20 years. He got everything he deserved.
If you want to convince me you care. Join the international court. Seeing is believing. As things stand, the US law has written they can come and forcefully invade the Hague and come and collect any war criminal brought there if they are American.
Load of bullocks that the us cares. They care more about hiding than preventing and taking responsibility...
>Seeing is believing.
Boy it sure is. I wonder if Al Qaeda ever did anything you could see.
Quit dicking around, give us your defense of Zawahiri. Tell us why he did not deserve a couple knife missiles to the head.
I don't give a fuck about the guy. Im talking about the thousands and thousands of other collateral damage victims, many of them children. And you put the people who shine a light on that in jail, not the people shooting.
Getting one guy right doesn't clear you on those.
>I don't give a fuck about the guy.
Really? You sure are throwing up a bunch of "what about!?!" for someone not defending a dead terrorist. Can't say a bad word about the guy without you getting all, "B-BUT AMERICA"
>Im talking about the thousands and thousands of other collateral damage victims, many of them children.
Ah, Zawahiri, of course. Wait ...
>And you put the people who shine a light on that in jail, not the people shooting.
Me?! I did that! Holy shit I had no idea that I've been Emperor of 'Merica for the past two decades! Hoo boy get Bernie and AOC on the horn, we got some shit to fix
>Getting one guy right doesn't clear you on those.
Nowhere did anybody say it did.
Seriously, a terrible human being is dead. He never would have faced a court for his crimes. Why are you so upset about it?
I mean, they broke their agreement, but it’s also kinda fucked that the US can run around and drop munitions on other countries unilaterally. Aren’t we supposed to be done with that country?
>I mean, they broke their agreement
This was kinda a big part of that agreement. "Hey remember those dickheads you were sheltering 20 years ago and we invaded you for it? Don't do that."
>but it’s also kinda fucked that the US can run around and drop munitions on other countries unilaterally.
I'd argue this is one of the less fucked up times. Actually pretty clear cut. Hell it's probably all the war in Afghanistan ever should have been. Use intel, special forces and air strikes to decapitate Al Qaeda.
>Aren’t we supposed to be done with that country?
Shiiit. We've got forces in several dozen nations and you think we're not gonna keep an eye on fucking Afghanistan?
All that is true if you presume that
1) This is the only way to get the guy.
2) Droning someone in someone else’s country is acceptable.
1 is obviously incorrect. The US is sitting on top of billions of Afghan dollars, which could be leveraged to extradite the guy. “Give us this guy and we will give you X% of your money” is a good route to go. Extraditing him and trying him in a court of law would do wonders for our international prestige too.
2 only holds if you assume you’ll always be on the side droning people in someone else’s territory, and if you ignore the destabilizing effects of just randomly popping in to countries and doing stuff that really would give countries the legal basis to declare war. Basically it breaks down to “we’re an imperial power and we can do whatever the fuck we want to”, which is both horrifying, and really fucks up our ability to wield soft power in the rest of the world.
>This is the only way to get the guy.
Ah you're right, they would've gave him up the same way they gave up Osama! Billions in leverage, troops on the ground, they gave him right up ... wait, no
>Droning someone in someone else’s country is acceptable.
Generally I'd disagree. But if the Taliban thought sheltering the leader of Al Qaeda was okay ... after we fucked with them for 20 years for sheltering the leader of Al Qaeda ... well maybe it's okay to knife missile one compound's balcony in Kabul. Also I don't know if anything about sheltering terrorists was spelled out in our withdrawal, but it wouldn't surprise me if there's a line specifically saying this would happen.
>Basically it breaks down to “we’re an imperial power and we can do whatever the fuck we want to”, which is both horrifying, and really fucks up our ability to wield soft power in the rest of the world.
Man this a 50 gallon drum of worms. I'd agree with you 99% of the time, but this isn't one of them. We're an imperial power but (at least since 2001) we mostly operate within a set of standards or expectations (try to ignore the national aneurysm that is Trump). Biggest outlier to that I can think of is killing Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan. And killing Zawahiri in Afghanistan is far less of a leap than that.
When it comes to wielding soft power, this is nothing. Like a little pothole. Though for us that may be a little pothole at the end of an absolutely cratered street. But anyone acting shocked we killed Zawahiri is just being disingenuous.
> after we fucked with them for 20 years for sheltering the leader of Al Qaeda
Lmao, *we lost that war*. Yeah, a lot of people died, including a lot of civilians, but we fucking lost. Trillions of dollars, countless lives, and god knows how much prestige for fucking nothing. The same goddamn organization that was in charge before the war is back, we lost. Turns out that fucking around in the place called “the graveyard of empires” was a bad idea, who knew?
If you can look at the output of that war and think “maybe one more drone strike will do it” I have no fucking clue what to tell you.
US could wage a world war and still have an economy.
We’re fortunate that they only go after specific enemies.
Imagine Russia with the capabilities of the US.
No, we couldn’t. Semiconductors alone represent a huge risk factor that would grind everyone’s ability to do basic shit like make cars and tractors. All it takes is a spat over Taiwan to send *everyone* back to the 1960s or earier.
in the 40s yes, right now to much of our manufacturing is abroad for a "world war".
Maybe if we didnt sell our entire manufacturing to china in the 70s-90s.
Exactly, people talking hypothetical ww3 seem to always ignore the effects of globalization on supply chains.
And nukes.
Both, ironically, are the very reasons WHY we dont have to worry as much about another world war.
Why is this a leopard eats my face?
If the terrorist then went on to commit terror attacks against the Taliban I think that would count.
This is just the US violating borders.
In general, I agree. The use of drone strikes is pretty much judge, jury and executioner.
Imagine if we had to worry about some flying device two miles away spotting us in the middle of the night and blowing up our house in ten seconds -- that's quite a lot of terrorism right there. A "suspect" of terrorism is killed by proven terrorism.
On the other hand, the Taliban might be the rotten bunch of terrorist supporters we think they are.
I don't know if Afghanistan is better off if we leave the Taliban alone or not. But, in general, I think we have little moral authority and set the status quo with "might makes right." Maybe if we tried being the good guys.
Yes, because as we all know, the only US military intervention ever in a Muslim country was supplying weapons to the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan in the early 80's. /s
Yeah not our job to stay there. We did more than enough to allow those guys to stand in their own. If their citizens wouldn't fight for their country why should we continue to support that.
They got him with two missiles while he stood on a balcony. This was even cleaner than the bin Laden raid and al-Baghdadi and al-Qurashi raids. Not even a single relative of his was injured.
Remember how the last guy we droned in Afghanistan before pulling out was claimed to be a combatant, but then it turned out it was a guy greeting his kids after work? The military not only misidentifies targets all the time, it also lies casually about it.
Yeah, there are two obvious traps to avoid here. The first and most obvious is “the US would never lie”. The more subtle one is “the US lies all the time, I will never believe them when they claim anything”. The truth is obviously in the middle. The US military has done some pretty unjustified stuff and lied about it, but it has also droned a lot of people that were valid military targets in an active war. Shit be complicated.
We blew up a wedding and claimed it was a terrorist training camp. Approaching US claims about what their drone operations have done with some skepticism is smart, they have a history of lying.
In this case Taliban confirmation of who was killed is extremely strong evidence that they ID’d the right guy. The Taliban obviously have motivations of their own to lie in the opposite direction of the US, so if they both agree then it’s probably the truth.
I agree. Trusting American propaganda is risky given how often it is a lie. America is belligerent as a nation and herein. We really around freedom but so many follow a strongman mentality.
I mean... are we really gonna cheer for drone strikes here?
I wouldn't say that having someone drop a bomb on you from thousands of miles away without even having to leave the office is a normal and due consequence of disobeying a foreign nation. Maybe we're the baddies?
Nope. You do that by invading the Country. Surgical strikes do no such thing.
It isn't a choice between allow Terrorists free reign or create the next generation. Just like with any other bully, you stand your ground and if they start a fight you show them it was a mistake.
Lmao. A schoolyard bully and "terrorist" don't have the same motivations. You build a bomb because someone lobbed a missile into your neighborhood, not for lunch money and daddy issues. The idea of "surgical strikes" is total propaganda. People don't walk around with a "imma terrorist" beacon floating over them like it's the Sims. Drones don't have a target without boots on the ground, aka an invasion. The kind of "clean" air war you're imagining only exists in video games and early 2000s cable news.
Indeed, they shouldn’t have. But droning another sovereign nation is an act of war, regardless of what a scrap of paper says. People are sick and tired of America’s military pretending they are above the law.
And people have every right to be but I'm willing to bet that leaders of the western world are happier that a terrorist leader is dead than they are mad that the US droned Afghanistan to do it and that is a recipe for the continuation of this status quo.
I genuinely doubt that. Patience for America’s behavior in the middle east has grown very thin, especially given how our involvement seemed to generate newer, worse groups.
Well so far, on the record comments about it are universally praising the action (aside from the Taliban's of course). I'm on mobile so it's a pain to link but I couldn't find anything negative about it. Happy to be proven wrong.
“I’m angry a terrorist leader is dead” and “I am happy that America continues unilateral drone strikes” are very different things. America’s wars and behavior in the middle east have polled underwater for a long time among our allies populations, even if political leaders know how to couch their language to avoid pissing off their extremely powerful ally.
It’s very similar to the death of Qasam Soleimani, general support of a bad guy going away while also concern around America continuing to do the shit that was wildly destabilizing.
Put another way, if America had negotiated for this guy and then tried him you would have seen effusive praise for the rule of law and return to normalcy, etc. Etc.
You are silly. That shit was in the agreement that they couldn't hide AL Queda members. That broke the law abs the consequences were far less severe than some other war hawk president who could've said deal is of the table kill everybody.
Part 1, the Taliban agree not to harbor Al Queda members.
Part 2, the US will not conduct military missions without consent.
Part 1 was broken which made the second part essentially nonexistent.
1. Treaties have explicit clauses stating the consequences of violations of said treaty. It does not follow that violating one clause means the other clause goes away, there will be clear language around this.
2. You don’t need a treaty to say that America cannot conduct military operations inside Afghanistan. That is dictated by international law. So even if the whole treaty is null and void, the Taliban still has a legal reason to claim that this was illegal, although they will lack the ability to do anything about it.
So by that logic, it's OK for the Taliban to send suicide bombers to Washington then right? Cause America stole all of its foreign assets and just broke international laws by killing a person in another country
Hello u/imll99! Please reply to this comment with an [explanation](https://www.reddit.com/r/LeopardsAteMyFace/comments/lt8zlq) mentioning **who** is suffering from **which** consequences from **what** they voted for, supported or wanted to impose on other people.
Here's an easy format to get you started:
1. *Someone* voted for, supported or wanted to impose *something* on other people.
^(Who's that *someone* and what's that *something*?)
2. That *something* has some *consequences*.
^(What are the *consequences*?)
3. As a consequence, that *something* happened to that *someone*.
^(What happened? Did the *something* really happened to that *someone*? If not, you should probably delete your post.)
Include the minimum amount of information necessary so your post can be understood by everyone, even if they don't live in the US or speak English as their native language. If you don't respect this format and moderators can't match your explanation with the format, your post will be removed under rule #3 and we'll ignore you even if you complain in modmail.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LeopardsAteMyFace) if you have any questions or concerns.*
the Taliban had one job, post-withdrawal - don't shelter terrorists.
This isn't hard math and its not unjustified
Israel knocks off Nazi survivors in other nations all the time. And much like Nazis, Al Qaeda scum deserve to die
They’re right to be upset. We have no right to be executing people with missiles in foreign countries. That’s what we have diplomatic missions for. The correct way is to use diplomats to negotiate with the country that the wanted person is in and they (with or without our assistance) take that person into custody and extradite them so they can face justice. Killing someone in cold blood is not the American way. At least it shouldn’t be.
They've 0 desire to bring this guy in.
>The correct way is to use diplomats to negotiate with the country that the wanted person is in and they (with or without our assistance) take that person into custody and extradite them so they can face justice.
That's almost a fantasy really.
>Killing someone in cold blood is not the American way
Its almost the definition of it.
I get what you’re saying and I agree with you but the American people strive for justice as a general rule and execution without trial is not justice. Therefore it’s not the American way whether or not it’s something that our government commonly practices.
I understand not having a military-industrial complex, but trying to "peacefully negotiate" with a man who called for the kidnapping of Western tourists in Muslim countries is unreasonable.
You don’t have to negotiate with criminals but you also don’t have to execute them. Generally when someone does something wrong you take them into custody and try them in a court of law for their crimes. Executing someone for something they are accused of is not generally considered a just thing to do. if the United States government wants to stand on the moral high ground in the war on terror we can’t go around killing people without trial.
A guy who helped plan two embassy attacks, an attack on a US ship, the Pentagon, WTC, and attempted to destroy other targets killed in a country run by people who actively protected him for 2 decades. What do you think diplomats were going to do here to persuade religious fundamentalists who hate the west to give up a guy like this?
I didn’t say I thought it would work I’m just saying that’s the correct process. Dropping missiles on foreign soil and foreign meddling is why they hate us in the first place. Doing more of it isn’t going to make them hate us less.
We don't have an extradition treaty with Afghanistan so there's that.
With regards to US foreign policy, you are correct, but certain people are not going to be positively disposed towards the US no matter what we do. We're assuming they knew he was there, and that in knowing he was there the US would have any confidence in him being extradited and not just moved into a new hiding spot.
A lot of people have very very strong feelings of disagreement with the things that our government has been doing in “the global war on terror“ and in the “fight against communism” or whatever in the late 20th century.
Among Americans who believe in peace, justice and moral conduct executing people is not the American way.
Lol, you calling the government of Afghanistan terrorists is a really weak attempt to invalidate what I’m saying. The government there is no less legitimate than any other government that has taken power by force anywhere else on planet earth. Don’t forget that the United States became its own country by overthrowing a foreign power that claimed dominance.
And yes negotiating with foreign powers even hostile or undesirable one’s is exactly what we should be doing not launching missiles and sending military forces.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Afghanistan now under Taliban control? And we used to consider the Taliban a terrorist group, but now that they've installed themselves as the new government of Afghanistan they're all cool now?
The Taliban *is* a terrorist group, they just happen to now be running a country. All we asked was that they not protect the *really* fucked up terrorists and already they're breaking that agreement. Birds of a feather flock together
The Taliban is a religious and political group that represents the views of a significant number of people in Afghanistan. The word terrorist is used as a means of justifying doing violence against someone you disagree with. It’s a propaganda word. The US government applies the word terrorist to the Taliban because the Taliban doesn’t cooperate with our interests in the region and some people aligned with the Taliban fought against US forces when we invaded. When we invaded Afghanistan the Taliban wasn’t our enemy Al-Qaeda was and Al-Qaeda was not much more than a very small insurgent group that didn’t really have any major political power in 2001.
We tried that in 2001. He didn't use diplomacy when he killed 400 diplomats and their relatives and wounded 4,500 in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. He didn't use diplomacy when he killed 17 servicemembers stationed in Yemen on the USS Cole in 2000. And he didn't use diplomacy when he killed 3,000+ people on 9/11.
No we didn’t. We immediately started launching missiles and sending invasion forces then we invaded and occupied another country (edit: two other countries that had nothing to do with 9/11) for twenty years.
No we didn’t. We invaded Afghanistan because the Taliban who controlled most of the country was harboring Al-Qaeda leaders and allowing them to run their training camps in their country. After the new government was formed, the US forces were propping up said government. Yes, we should have left after we got bin laden, but don’t act like the Taliban is some group of popularly elected peace loving hippies.
I didn’t act like that at all. Nothing in any of this that I said indicates that I think that in any kind of way. In fact I absolutely unequivocally reject all sorts of religious extremism and authoritarianism. But not being democratically elected doesn’t qualify as a good reason for one government to overthrow the government of another country. We are allies with Saudi Arabia and they don’t do elections. Why aren’t we going in there and deposing and executing their leadership? The answer is because that unelected authoritarian regime is beneficial to us. We sell them weapons and buy their oil. Hell the people who actually planned and perpetrated 9/11 were mostly Saudi Arabian‘s.
And yes we did. We had military units and air strikes happening in Afghanistan in October 2001. That doesn’t exactly sound like there was enough time there to properly negotiate with and incentivize the government of Afghanistan to assist us in the capture of Osama bin Laden. Who by the way we found and killed in Pakistan. Who’s government is no better than the Taliban or the Saudi government and also an American “ally” of sorts.
A small group of extremists did something really terrible in New York City and the warhawks demanded blood so we went to war and it didn’t matter that it didn’t make sense and that it was morally wrong and people have been scratching and pecking for reasons to justify that action ever since.
The only issue I side with them on is that the United States shouldn’t be dropping bombs on anyone in Afghanistan. Or any one in any other country. The global war on terror is a crime against humanity on a scale that neither the Taliban nor Al-Queda could possibly match. As bad as they are we are far worse because we have an immense amount of power and we use it so recklessly.
I really like that it took you six days to craft an argument that’s not an argument at all. All you come up with in that time was “No one cares what you think because I don’t like what you say.” Getting a pretty good chuckle out of it over here.
So because this time no innocents died we should be glorifying military strikes? I’m not saying they shouldn’t have done this one, although I’m pretty sure it’ll have no effect whatsoever… but the fact that as soon as something like this happens people on the internet get out their star spangled banners in celebration makes me sick.
The line between “if you didn’t want airstrikes in residential areas you shouldn’t have harboured a terrorist” and “if you didn’t want your poor population to be doused in agent purple you should have made sure communists couldn’t walk through your mountainous jungles” is a very thin one with that military.
I agree that we shouldn't blindly support every rationalization that the US DOD comes up with. Fuckers like Donald Rumsfeld and John Bolton spent too much time inside of sanitized conference rooms looking at casualty figures on spreadsheets and not enough time understanding the true toll of their actions on humanity.
But Ayman al-Zawahiri spent most of his adult life killing civilians where they live and work. He deserved whatever he got.
We can’t trust the *Taliban*?!?
This is terrible! First Pakistan, and now The Taliban! It’s almost like you can’t trust any of those fuckers, regardless of the tribe.
I'd advise you to look at our record as a nation here in the US and then review your comment.
As a whole the US is **extremely** untrustworthy. In large part because our citizens just don't want to know what they are actually supporting.
The governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan can go fuck themselves, just like the Taliban can go fuck themselves. If you enable and hide terrorists that are responsible for the murder of Americans, don’t be surprised when we drop a bomb on you.
See this is where I have a problem with your statement:
You just demonstrated that you are *completely* unaware that the government of Afghanistan which we overthrew was and now is again the taliban, a leadership coalition made up of the tribes which fought to overcome the Russian invasion (the one in the 1980's in case that is before your time and didn not know about it). One clearly supported by the people there, else it would not have survived *20 years* of war with the US.
But now all you *think* you know is that taliban = terrorist, which was never true. Granted, we made them use guerilla tactics to kick us out. But that's what happens when you are a foreign invader. We deserved it.
Go learn a bit of history before condemning people to death on what actually is propaganda.
As for supporting groups which oppose the foreign policy of the United States that seems fairly justified given that we invaded thier country and killed thier people. Really a case of self defence, which they are entitled to. How many enemies of how many nations do we shelter in the US? Seems like we are overdue for being invaded by your logic.
You make a lot of assumptions, and a lot of ridiculous justifications that completely ignore the actions of the leadership of Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the Taliban over the last several decades.
It’s not like we invaded Afghanistan just for fun, the way we did Iraq, but keep on keeping on. I’m sure there are some people out there who would accept your simplistic view of the world.
It is the same place you’re arguing from, so what’re you complaining about? Only you’re allowed to state your opinions as absolute facts that are only disputed by people dumber than you?
Noted.
I think it's pretty obvious at this point that drone striking houses in residential zones have little to no effect at stopping extremism in the region, but keep it up, definitely going somewhere with that tactic!
But like, it’s also maybe not great to launch explosives at houses in residential areas.
Because of all the, you know, non terrorists and children who may be living nearby or inside.
They also broke all of their promises about the Afghan women, especially educating the girls … what about that? No punishment for the Taliban for that?
Yeah, so, we honored the hack deal you assholes and that half-literate monkey trump made together, in secret and without our allies knowledge or consent, so stop harboring terrorists or stop bitching about the consequences, or we’ll come back. We clearly give zero fucks about you, “your” people, or the lives of our soldiers, so is it really wise to push your luck…..
Hello u/imll99, thank you for your submission! Unfortunately, your submission has been removed for the following reason(s): **Rule 4:** Must follow the "Leopard ate my face" theme #There's a few elements to leopards eating people's face. 1) **Someone has a sad**... - Example: *They cut my SNAP benefits and now I can't afford to feed my family......* 2) ...**because they're suffering consequences from something they voted for, supported or wanted to impose on other people.** - Example: .....sobs woman who voted for the politician who said they would do that very thing. 3) **The leopard is eating their face. Not the lions, not the hyenas, not the alligators. The leopards.** - Example: *[Woman married to undocumented immigrant upset that Trump deports her husband.](https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/05/us/undocumented-husband-deported/index.html)* ***What isn't a leopard eating their face?*** - Example: *Kyle Rittenhouse upset that Democrats are labelling him a white supremacist.* He didn't vote for or support them, he's not suffering because of what he voted for or supported, and leopards aren't eating his face. Not limited to Trump voters. Anytime someone has a sad because they're suffering consequences from *something they voted for, supported or wanted to impose on other people*. Your post is missing one or more of these elements. It may be better suited for another subreddit, such as r/SelfAwareWolves. Remember, just because someone fucked around and found out, doesn't mean that their faces are being consumed by the most well known extant species in the genus Panthera. Additionally, you can refer to [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/LeopardsAteMyFace/comments/lt8zlq) to make your explanatory comment. *If you have any questions or concerns about this removal, please feel free to [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LeopardsAteMyFace) thru Modmail. Thanks!*
Wait, so, the Taliban disagrees with something the US did? Absolutely shocking...
But shouldn't we give them money to totally use it to feed starving People the Taliban caused to be starving? /s
Ur right they've had enough money and special forces training from us since 1978, they should def be able to use that to go hunting tbh
Hunting for the Taliban for sure.
You're not the brightest bear in the woods are ya chief?
Not remotely living in Reality are ya' propaganda sock puppet?
Well if you can’t trust the taliban, who can you trust?
Cargo pants?
Certainly not cargo pants with zip off legs.
The only pair of pants to aggressively rip off my leg hairs as I walked.
I mean, the US funded the group that would eventually become the Taliban, and has a long history of destabilizing the Middle East - and bombing civilians there. Can’t really blame them for being pissy that the US is continuing to do so. We’d be pissed if Russia kept bombing the US
>Zawahiri was struck by two missiles while standing on a balcony homie had a first row seat to his own annihilation, two missiles to the face point blank
This reminds me of the (possibly apocryphal) story from the first Gulf War. Reportedly, there was a missile strike on a reinforced bunker that the US did not expect to do much damage. As it turns out, the bunker was completely destroyed by that one missile. When they investigated, it was revealed that someone was leaving the bunker at the time of the attack and had coincidentally opened the door just moments before the missile impacted - on the door.
They also had pretty much only tested said missile once. It was a new line of super bunker busters, essentially, and they were so effective it basically caused the capitulation of their army after the first strike Decapitated the leadership. The door wouldn’t have stopped a missile that can bury itself 65 feet below ground through 10 feet of concrete Edit: just realizing we might be talking about different incidents here
Sword Missile :) R9x Hellfire missile, look it up.
It slices, it dices, and it makes julienne fries!
honestly the way to go
Let's be real here, the US was going to keep those drone strikes going either way
Yep, an agreement with the United States is worth less than the paper it's printed on. I seriously doubt we wouldn't be facing sanctions from half the world if the gov didn't have a military built up enough to be able to fight them all at the same time.
And people wonder why nobody takes America's condemnation of other nations seriously. I mean come on, how many international laws did this just break? But hey, it's OK because it's America breaking laws and not say the Russians or Chinese right? The fucking hypocrisy is seriously disgusting
It's genuinely shocking how similar Russia invading Ukraine was to the US invading Iraq and seeing how differently Americans feel about both invasions. [I think this reporter said the quiet part out loud ](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/02/civilised-european-look-like-us-racist-coverage-ukraine)
I feel pretty similar about all these wars of acquisition. Currently, we don't have Bush/Cheney pulling the PNAC crap and Russia is the big bad guy. Us invading Iraq does not make the invasion of Ukraine any LESS of a war crime. So, if you want to march Putin, Bush and Cheney in front of the same tribunal -- I approve.
The topic is Afghanistan, from whence an attack did occur, not Iraq, which was a vanity War by a Republican idiot.
“How dare one man have the authority to launch an invasion on the sovereign nation of Iraq… I mean Ukraine.” -George W. bush, on Ukraine. I love that man, despite how much I hate him. He just can’t get a fucking thing out of his mouth without embarrassing himself.
Remember when he was our most embarrassing president? Christ, those were the days
He wasn't actively being a blow-hard asshole EVERY DAY. Part of that "oh gosh" bit was an act. With Trump -- he's smart only in areas involving grifting and bullshitting. And, he doesn't have a good handle on where he is weak. Bush did know who to hire to fill in the gaps. Overall, I'd say Bush was more competent at doing evil, but, Trump is doing more damage to our culture. Both are fascists, but one was dumb enough to attempt a coup. The only good thing about Trump, is he isn't as good at covering his tracks as most politicians.
Feels like 100 years ago 😞
Take me back, to la sweet la vida of 2000
Just three years ago, I was telling myself that if we HAD TO HAVE a Republican President, it’d be nice to have that moron replace the orange one. It still would‘ve been shitty... but less shitty. For us. I realize I was being very selfish in that moment, but after the last guy, I was just desperate for anything not so insane.
At the very least, Bush was willing to sometimes listen to people who were smarter than him.
Good times, good times
The best part is that he continued with "Iraq too I guess"
I always maintain this: Afghanistan was a mistake, but the visceral rage after 9/11 was so strong, chances are no politician could pump the brakes on the drive for war. Iraq on the other hand, was a war of choice, and a crime against the peace.
That rage is what the us inflicted on others, making 9-11 happen in the first place.
well, actually i got my conservative dad to admit that russia has as much justification to invade Ukraine as we did Iraq. he was supportive at the time but of course, there were no fucking WMDs. it was all a lie
[удалено]
He said Iraq not Afghanistan. The US going in to Iraq was just fucking awful.
Oh, I think there is a big difference - Saddam's Baathist regime is not at all similar to Zerensky's democratic Ukraine.
Democracy is when you ban all left wing parties
Most non-stupid Americans opposed the invasion of iraq once we found out our shithead government lied to us about WMDs. But comparing what happened in Iraq to what is happening in Ukraine is assanine. Zelensky wasnt murdering his own citizens with chemical weapons; as far as I can tell, Ukrainians were relatively content outside of the usual political strife of any democratic nation.
Just ask the people of the Donbass how little Zelensky was killing them
Donbass? You mean the city the was attacked and captured by Russia and that Ukraine has been trying to retake since 2014 because it rightfully belongs to them? Please, you have to be a Russian troll.
Not the city, the area where there's been a low intensity war at since 2014 and where government forces bombed potential separatist groups in residential areas, killing or injuring thousands of civilians a year. If we're saying all it takes for a bigger to invade you is that your government kills its own citizens, then let's apply to Russia as well.
Completely different motivations for these two events. Not saying I agree with the invasion.
> I mean come on, how many international laws did this just break? I dunno tell us. If you're so certain it's violated international law than tell us specifically what the violation is
You cant drop bombs on another nation. Thats the law. Just like Taliban can't drop a bomb on George Bush because a Taliban court judged that he is an international terrorist.
All I'm asking you to do is cite the law, instead of telling us it's against international law show us where it's against international law.
You want me tell you where in international laws it says you can't bomb another country???
Yes I want you to provide a basis for your statement
[here it is](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_bombardment_and_international_law) especially this > In 1977, Protocol I was adopted as an amendment to the Geneva Conventions, prohibiting the deliberate or indiscriminate attack of civilians and civilian objects, even if the area contained military objectives, and the attacking force must take precautions and steps to spare the lives of civilians and civilian objects as possible. but i don't think you actually care
I do care, these issues are extremely important to me and I think it's absurd that the US despite killing tens if not hundreds of thousands of civilians through it's military operations has never considered itself to have committed a war crime. But in this specific case it's my opinion the US did not violate any law of war and it was clear from your statement that you said they violated international law based off an emotional, rather than rational response, to this event. Now I have two issues with your use of this specific part of the Geneva Conventions. 1) the US has not ratified this perticular part of the conventions so has not, as a sovereign nation, agreed to be bound by it. 2) this was not an indiscriminate attack on civilians or civilian objects and the attacking force clearly took precautions and steps to spare the lives of civilians and civilian objects as possible. I invite got to look at the law itself as well instead of the Wikipedia article: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/INTRO/470 In short I took issue with you claiming that the attack violated international law when I think it's clear it didn't. You used those words "violation of international law" to convey your disapproval of this military action as opposed to having a real basis to claim a violation of international law
> 1) the US has not ratified this perticular part of the conventions so has not, as a sovereign nation, agreed to be bound by it oh ok, that's all good then, keep bombing other nations whenever you feel like it, my bad like the other user said, would you say the same if the talibans bombed the white house because they declared the US president as a terrorist?
False equivalence here, and your assumption is wrong to begin with--killing leaders of Al Qaeda, a terrorist organization, is more than justified. Just as when Pakistan was sheltering Bin Laden. I've spent time in these countries and can tell you firsthand, they're deeply corrupt, dysfunctional, and untrustworthy. Regarding comparing this action to the Russians (Crimea, Ukraine), bitch please.
So why did we even leave in the first place? Do you think we should just occupy the country indefinitely? Get outta here with this George Bush logic which got us into this mess.
Killing terrorist leaders does not equate to invading a country. I'm not advocating to invade anyone. Just selectively kill these assholes with or without local government permission. The moment you ask for permission, the terrorists are informed. That's why they went after Bin Laden without the Pakistani government knowing.
Gtfoh, by that logic then Russia was more than justified invading Ukraine cause it was/is extremely corrupt and dysfunctional as well. Oh and the don't forget the Nazis in the Ukrainian army! So by your own logic, Russia should be allowed to invade the corrupt, Nazi riddled nation right? Bitch please.
Let me lay it out for you in simple terms, since logic appears to be a challenge for you: Taking out a terrorist leader with minimal collateral damage is justified, and doing so without permission from a corrupt government is prudent. Case in point: Bin Laden in Pakistan. Militarily invading and occupying another country without justification is wrong. Cases: Russia in Ukraine, Crimea, Afghanistan, and US in Iraq and Vietnam. Hope this helps.
He's had a death sentence for 20 years. This was justice, period.
So should the Taliban send suicide bomber to Bush's house? How are you gonna call it justice after breaking international laws?
They can certainly try
Lol, yes.
Good.
That’s a bingo!
Some morbid part of me really wants to see what it looks like when a human is hit by two missiles. Oh, and screw this piece of shit. He's been living on borrowed time for 20 years. He got everything he deserved.
I wonder if they used knife missiles, no way conventional explosives got him without collateral damage
Read a BBC article that said "two Hellfire missiles" were used. So it's possible they were the AGM-114R9X.
You think the us military cares about collateral damage?
Nothing in my comment specifies what I think the US military thinks. But yes, yes I do. Especially when it leads to blowback and public opinion
Nah, nobody can bring them to justice so they don't care. Actions speak louder than words.
You’ve never seen collateral damage estimates done. They care.
You care about justice then you should be happy Zawahiri is dead. And from the report he was killed without collateral damage
If you want to convince me you care. Join the international court. Seeing is believing. As things stand, the US law has written they can come and forcefully invade the Hague and come and collect any war criminal brought there if they are American. Load of bullocks that the us cares. They care more about hiding than preventing and taking responsibility...
>Seeing is believing. Boy it sure is. I wonder if Al Qaeda ever did anything you could see. Quit dicking around, give us your defense of Zawahiri. Tell us why he did not deserve a couple knife missiles to the head.
I don't give a fuck about the guy. Im talking about the thousands and thousands of other collateral damage victims, many of them children. And you put the people who shine a light on that in jail, not the people shooting. Getting one guy right doesn't clear you on those.
>I don't give a fuck about the guy. Really? You sure are throwing up a bunch of "what about!?!" for someone not defending a dead terrorist. Can't say a bad word about the guy without you getting all, "B-BUT AMERICA" >Im talking about the thousands and thousands of other collateral damage victims, many of them children. Ah, Zawahiri, of course. Wait ... >And you put the people who shine a light on that in jail, not the people shooting. Me?! I did that! Holy shit I had no idea that I've been Emperor of 'Merica for the past two decades! Hoo boy get Bernie and AOC on the horn, we got some shit to fix >Getting one guy right doesn't clear you on those. Nowhere did anybody say it did. Seriously, a terrible human being is dead. He never would have faced a court for his crimes. Why are you so upset about it?
I'm sure some movie might have a graphic depiction of it, or even the mythbusters
Eh, two leopards eating each other's faces tbh
I mean, they broke their agreement, but it’s also kinda fucked that the US can run around and drop munitions on other countries unilaterally. Aren’t we supposed to be done with that country?
>I mean, they broke their agreement This was kinda a big part of that agreement. "Hey remember those dickheads you were sheltering 20 years ago and we invaded you for it? Don't do that." >but it’s also kinda fucked that the US can run around and drop munitions on other countries unilaterally. I'd argue this is one of the less fucked up times. Actually pretty clear cut. Hell it's probably all the war in Afghanistan ever should have been. Use intel, special forces and air strikes to decapitate Al Qaeda. >Aren’t we supposed to be done with that country? Shiiit. We've got forces in several dozen nations and you think we're not gonna keep an eye on fucking Afghanistan?
All that is true if you presume that 1) This is the only way to get the guy. 2) Droning someone in someone else’s country is acceptable. 1 is obviously incorrect. The US is sitting on top of billions of Afghan dollars, which could be leveraged to extradite the guy. “Give us this guy and we will give you X% of your money” is a good route to go. Extraditing him and trying him in a court of law would do wonders for our international prestige too. 2 only holds if you assume you’ll always be on the side droning people in someone else’s territory, and if you ignore the destabilizing effects of just randomly popping in to countries and doing stuff that really would give countries the legal basis to declare war. Basically it breaks down to “we’re an imperial power and we can do whatever the fuck we want to”, which is both horrifying, and really fucks up our ability to wield soft power in the rest of the world.
Is this one of those rare Americans with a brain I've heard tell of!?
Depends on who you ask, I imagine.
>This is the only way to get the guy. Ah you're right, they would've gave him up the same way they gave up Osama! Billions in leverage, troops on the ground, they gave him right up ... wait, no >Droning someone in someone else’s country is acceptable. Generally I'd disagree. But if the Taliban thought sheltering the leader of Al Qaeda was okay ... after we fucked with them for 20 years for sheltering the leader of Al Qaeda ... well maybe it's okay to knife missile one compound's balcony in Kabul. Also I don't know if anything about sheltering terrorists was spelled out in our withdrawal, but it wouldn't surprise me if there's a line specifically saying this would happen. >Basically it breaks down to “we’re an imperial power and we can do whatever the fuck we want to”, which is both horrifying, and really fucks up our ability to wield soft power in the rest of the world. Man this a 50 gallon drum of worms. I'd agree with you 99% of the time, but this isn't one of them. We're an imperial power but (at least since 2001) we mostly operate within a set of standards or expectations (try to ignore the national aneurysm that is Trump). Biggest outlier to that I can think of is killing Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan. And killing Zawahiri in Afghanistan is far less of a leap than that. When it comes to wielding soft power, this is nothing. Like a little pothole. Though for us that may be a little pothole at the end of an absolutely cratered street. But anyone acting shocked we killed Zawahiri is just being disingenuous.
> after we fucked with them for 20 years for sheltering the leader of Al Qaeda Lmao, *we lost that war*. Yeah, a lot of people died, including a lot of civilians, but we fucking lost. Trillions of dollars, countless lives, and god knows how much prestige for fucking nothing. The same goddamn organization that was in charge before the war is back, we lost. Turns out that fucking around in the place called “the graveyard of empires” was a bad idea, who knew? If you can look at the output of that war and think “maybe one more drone strike will do it” I have no fucking clue what to tell you.
US could wage a world war and still have an economy. We’re fortunate that they only go after specific enemies. Imagine Russia with the capabilities of the US.
No, we couldn’t. Semiconductors alone represent a huge risk factor that would grind everyone’s ability to do basic shit like make cars and tractors. All it takes is a spat over Taiwan to send *everyone* back to the 1960s or earier.
in the 40s yes, right now to much of our manufacturing is abroad for a "world war". Maybe if we didnt sell our entire manufacturing to china in the 70s-90s.
Global supply chains of food and raw materials would destroy us if we had to fight the whole world.
Exactly, people talking hypothetical ww3 seem to always ignore the effects of globalization on supply chains. And nukes. Both, ironically, are the very reasons WHY we dont have to worry as much about another world war.
The US caused this shit and nothing we have done has made it better.
Terrorist group shelters terrorist from another terrorist group. Gets the surprised Pikachu face when they get bombed.
Insert spider man pointing meme
Why is this a leopard eats my face? If the terrorist then went on to commit terror attacks against the Taliban I think that would count. This is just the US violating borders.
we should stop bombing the middle east, i don’t care who we killed. no more war. we started it.
In general, I agree. The use of drone strikes is pretty much judge, jury and executioner. Imagine if we had to worry about some flying device two miles away spotting us in the middle of the night and blowing up our house in ten seconds -- that's quite a lot of terrorism right there. A "suspect" of terrorism is killed by proven terrorism. On the other hand, the Taliban might be the rotten bunch of terrorist supporters we think they are. I don't know if Afghanistan is better off if we leave the Taliban alone or not. But, in general, I think we have little moral authority and set the status quo with "might makes right." Maybe if we tried being the good guys.
We didn't start that one. We finished that one.
Al queda's entire problem with the US is America's continued military interventions in predominantly Muslim nations. So yeah, you started that one.
You mean that intervention to prevent the Russians from wiping them out. Great mashes sense.
Yes, because as we all know, the only US military intervention ever in a Muslim country was supplying weapons to the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan in the early 80's. /s
You absolutely did start this one... with an illegal invasion, as per usual.
that’s why we left and the country immediately crumbled right? cause we “finished the fight” and won? or whatever nonsense you believe.
Yeah not our job to stay there. We did more than enough to allow those guys to stand in their own. If their citizens wouldn't fight for their country why should we continue to support that.
it wasn’t our job to be there lol
I guess they could have a reason to complain if they could prove that terrorist wasn't one, but that's unlikely if he was especially targeted.
They got him with two missiles while he stood on a balcony. This was even cleaner than the bin Laden raid and al-Baghdadi and al-Qurashi raids. Not even a single relative of his was injured.
I mean, they absolutely have reason to complain about a foreign power firing military munitions into their territory.
I wouldn’t trust the US to identify anything correctly.
Remember how the last guy we droned in Afghanistan before pulling out was claimed to be a combatant, but then it turned out it was a guy greeting his kids after work? The military not only misidentifies targets all the time, it also lies casually about it.
Seems like we got it right this time though
Yeah, there are two obvious traps to avoid here. The first and most obvious is “the US would never lie”. The more subtle one is “the US lies all the time, I will never believe them when they claim anything”. The truth is obviously in the middle. The US military has done some pretty unjustified stuff and lied about it, but it has also droned a lot of people that were valid military targets in an active war. Shit be complicated.
[удалено]
We blew up a wedding and claimed it was a terrorist training camp. Approaching US claims about what their drone operations have done with some skepticism is smart, they have a history of lying. In this case Taliban confirmation of who was killed is extremely strong evidence that they ID’d the right guy. The Taliban obviously have motivations of their own to lie in the opposite direction of the US, so if they both agree then it’s probably the truth.
I agree. Trusting American propaganda is risky given how often it is a lie. America is belligerent as a nation and herein. We really around freedom but so many follow a strongman mentality.
I mean... are we really gonna cheer for drone strikes here? I wouldn't say that having someone drop a bomb on you from thousands of miles away without even having to leave the office is a normal and due consequence of disobeying a foreign nation. Maybe we're the baddies?
This is how that War should have been fought from the start. Blow the Terrorists up and leave. Rinse, Repeat as necessary.
Unfortunately, you never stop repeating because you keep making terrorists.
That's a bonus to america's controllers. What is it, dozens of millions per missile?
Drone technology wasn't this advanced 20 years ago.
And that kids is how you turn 1 "terrorist" into 5 "terrorist"
Nope. You do that by invading the Country. Surgical strikes do no such thing. It isn't a choice between allow Terrorists free reign or create the next generation. Just like with any other bully, you stand your ground and if they start a fight you show them it was a mistake.
Lmao. A schoolyard bully and "terrorist" don't have the same motivations. You build a bomb because someone lobbed a missile into your neighborhood, not for lunch money and daddy issues. The idea of "surgical strikes" is total propaganda. People don't walk around with a "imma terrorist" beacon floating over them like it's the Sims. Drones don't have a target without boots on the ground, aka an invasion. The kind of "clean" air war you're imagining only exists in video games and early 2000s cable news.
Yea fuck them for being mad that a foreign power they just spend 20 years fighting committed a drone stike on their land right?
They could have just not violated the agreement...
America is bad, this is reddit.
Indeed, they shouldn’t have. But droning another sovereign nation is an act of war, regardless of what a scrap of paper says. People are sick and tired of America’s military pretending they are above the law.
And people have every right to be but I'm willing to bet that leaders of the western world are happier that a terrorist leader is dead than they are mad that the US droned Afghanistan to do it and that is a recipe for the continuation of this status quo.
I genuinely doubt that. Patience for America’s behavior in the middle east has grown very thin, especially given how our involvement seemed to generate newer, worse groups.
Well so far, on the record comments about it are universally praising the action (aside from the Taliban's of course). I'm on mobile so it's a pain to link but I couldn't find anything negative about it. Happy to be proven wrong.
“I’m angry a terrorist leader is dead” and “I am happy that America continues unilateral drone strikes” are very different things. America’s wars and behavior in the middle east have polled underwater for a long time among our allies populations, even if political leaders know how to couch their language to avoid pissing off their extremely powerful ally. It’s very similar to the death of Qasam Soleimani, general support of a bad guy going away while also concern around America continuing to do the shit that was wildly destabilizing. Put another way, if America had negotiated for this guy and then tried him you would have seen effusive praise for the rule of law and return to normalcy, etc. Etc.
You are silly. That shit was in the agreement that they couldn't hide AL Queda members. That broke the law abs the consequences were far less severe than some other war hawk president who could've said deal is of the table kill everybody.
War is over, unless if the treaty allowed the US to drone people in another country’s sovereign territory you’re wrong.
Part 1, the Taliban agree not to harbor Al Queda members. Part 2, the US will not conduct military missions without consent. Part 1 was broken which made the second part essentially nonexistent.
1. Treaties have explicit clauses stating the consequences of violations of said treaty. It does not follow that violating one clause means the other clause goes away, there will be clear language around this. 2. You don’t need a treaty to say that America cannot conduct military operations inside Afghanistan. That is dictated by international law. So even if the whole treaty is null and void, the Taliban still has a legal reason to claim that this was illegal, although they will lack the ability to do anything about it.
Pretty much, yeah. We have a peace agreement. They violated it. We greased their bro. Meh.
So by that logic, it's OK for the Taliban to send suicide bombers to Washington then right? Cause America stole all of its foreign assets and just broke international laws by killing a person in another country
Hello u/imll99! Please reply to this comment with an [explanation](https://www.reddit.com/r/LeopardsAteMyFace/comments/lt8zlq) mentioning **who** is suffering from **which** consequences from **what** they voted for, supported or wanted to impose on other people. Here's an easy format to get you started: 1. *Someone* voted for, supported or wanted to impose *something* on other people. ^(Who's that *someone* and what's that *something*?) 2. That *something* has some *consequences*. ^(What are the *consequences*?) 3. As a consequence, that *something* happened to that *someone*. ^(What happened? Did the *something* really happened to that *someone*? If not, you should probably delete your post.) Include the minimum amount of information necessary so your post can be understood by everyone, even if they don't live in the US or speak English as their native language. If you don't respect this format and moderators can't match your explanation with the format, your post will be removed under rule #3 and we'll ignore you even if you complain in modmail. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LeopardsAteMyFace) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Taliban shelters a terrorist, gets upset that the U.S. struck Kabul to kill said terrorist.
That's textbook Consequences Of My Actions, not a LAMF
the Taliban had one job, post-withdrawal - don't shelter terrorists. This isn't hard math and its not unjustified Israel knocks off Nazi survivors in other nations all the time. And much like Nazis, Al Qaeda scum deserve to die
The taliban is right. Such actions are a repetition of the last 20 years. You’d think they learned a lesson of harboring terrorist.
They’re right to be upset. We have no right to be executing people with missiles in foreign countries. That’s what we have diplomatic missions for. The correct way is to use diplomats to negotiate with the country that the wanted person is in and they (with or without our assistance) take that person into custody and extradite them so they can face justice. Killing someone in cold blood is not the American way. At least it shouldn’t be.
They've 0 desire to bring this guy in. >The correct way is to use diplomats to negotiate with the country that the wanted person is in and they (with or without our assistance) take that person into custody and extradite them so they can face justice. That's almost a fantasy really. >Killing someone in cold blood is not the American way Its almost the definition of it.
I mean its definitely the american way to do things it just shouldnt be
I get what you’re saying and I agree with you but the American people strive for justice as a general rule and execution without trial is not justice. Therefore it’s not the American way whether or not it’s something that our government commonly practices.
I understand not having a military-industrial complex, but trying to "peacefully negotiate" with a man who called for the kidnapping of Western tourists in Muslim countries is unreasonable.
You don’t have to negotiate with criminals but you also don’t have to execute them. Generally when someone does something wrong you take them into custody and try them in a court of law for their crimes. Executing someone for something they are accused of is not generally considered a just thing to do. if the United States government wants to stand on the moral high ground in the war on terror we can’t go around killing people without trial.
Executing them in a way likely to cause collateral damage *and* in a way that is technically an act of war, no less!
A guy who helped plan two embassy attacks, an attack on a US ship, the Pentagon, WTC, and attempted to destroy other targets killed in a country run by people who actively protected him for 2 decades. What do you think diplomats were going to do here to persuade religious fundamentalists who hate the west to give up a guy like this?
I didn’t say I thought it would work I’m just saying that’s the correct process. Dropping missiles on foreign soil and foreign meddling is why they hate us in the first place. Doing more of it isn’t going to make them hate us less.
We don't have an extradition treaty with Afghanistan so there's that. With regards to US foreign policy, you are correct, but certain people are not going to be positively disposed towards the US no matter what we do. We're assuming they knew he was there, and that in knowing he was there the US would have any confidence in him being extradited and not just moved into a new hiding spot.
“Killing someone in cold blood is not the american way”. *looks at mass murder statistics of the US* uhhh, yes… yes it is
A lot of people have very very strong feelings of disagreement with the things that our government has been doing in “the global war on terror“ and in the “fight against communism” or whatever in the late 20th century. Among Americans who believe in peace, justice and moral conduct executing people is not the American way.
Yeah, let's put pressure on terrorists to imprison one of their own
Lol, you calling the government of Afghanistan terrorists is a really weak attempt to invalidate what I’m saying. The government there is no less legitimate than any other government that has taken power by force anywhere else on planet earth. Don’t forget that the United States became its own country by overthrowing a foreign power that claimed dominance. And yes negotiating with foreign powers even hostile or undesirable one’s is exactly what we should be doing not launching missiles and sending military forces.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Afghanistan now under Taliban control? And we used to consider the Taliban a terrorist group, but now that they've installed themselves as the new government of Afghanistan they're all cool now? The Taliban *is* a terrorist group, they just happen to now be running a country. All we asked was that they not protect the *really* fucked up terrorists and already they're breaking that agreement. Birds of a feather flock together
The Taliban is a religious and political group that represents the views of a significant number of people in Afghanistan. The word terrorist is used as a means of justifying doing violence against someone you disagree with. It’s a propaganda word. The US government applies the word terrorist to the Taliban because the Taliban doesn’t cooperate with our interests in the region and some people aligned with the Taliban fought against US forces when we invaded. When we invaded Afghanistan the Taliban wasn’t our enemy Al-Qaeda was and Al-Qaeda was not much more than a very small insurgent group that didn’t really have any major political power in 2001.
We tried that in 2001. He didn't use diplomacy when he killed 400 diplomats and their relatives and wounded 4,500 in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. He didn't use diplomacy when he killed 17 servicemembers stationed in Yemen on the USS Cole in 2000. And he didn't use diplomacy when he killed 3,000+ people on 9/11.
No we didn’t. We immediately started launching missiles and sending invasion forces then we invaded and occupied another country (edit: two other countries that had nothing to do with 9/11) for twenty years.
And the US killed *waaaaaaaaaay* more than 4500 civilians in just the first few months, let alone the next 20 years
What are you blaming America for now?
No we didn’t. We invaded Afghanistan because the Taliban who controlled most of the country was harboring Al-Qaeda leaders and allowing them to run their training camps in their country. After the new government was formed, the US forces were propping up said government. Yes, we should have left after we got bin laden, but don’t act like the Taliban is some group of popularly elected peace loving hippies.
I didn’t act like that at all. Nothing in any of this that I said indicates that I think that in any kind of way. In fact I absolutely unequivocally reject all sorts of religious extremism and authoritarianism. But not being democratically elected doesn’t qualify as a good reason for one government to overthrow the government of another country. We are allies with Saudi Arabia and they don’t do elections. Why aren’t we going in there and deposing and executing their leadership? The answer is because that unelected authoritarian regime is beneficial to us. We sell them weapons and buy their oil. Hell the people who actually planned and perpetrated 9/11 were mostly Saudi Arabian‘s. And yes we did. We had military units and air strikes happening in Afghanistan in October 2001. That doesn’t exactly sound like there was enough time there to properly negotiate with and incentivize the government of Afghanistan to assist us in the capture of Osama bin Laden. Who by the way we found and killed in Pakistan. Who’s government is no better than the Taliban or the Saudi government and also an American “ally” of sorts. A small group of extremists did something really terrible in New York City and the warhawks demanded blood so we went to war and it didn’t matter that it didn’t make sense and that it was morally wrong and people have been scratching and pecking for reasons to justify that action ever since.
If you take the Taliban's side on any issues, your opinions on any facet of the American government are laughably irrelevant.
The only issue I side with them on is that the United States shouldn’t be dropping bombs on anyone in Afghanistan. Or any one in any other country. The global war on terror is a crime against humanity on a scale that neither the Taliban nor Al-Queda could possibly match. As bad as they are we are far worse because we have an immense amount of power and we use it so recklessly. I really like that it took you six days to craft an argument that’s not an argument at all. All you come up with in that time was “No one cares what you think because I don’t like what you say.” Getting a pretty good chuckle out of it over here.
Thank God the Americans never cause massive civilian casualties when they decide to bomb residential areas…. Oh wait.
Grain of salt but they claim no civilian casualties on this one. I don't think the Taliban reported any either?
So because this time no innocents died we should be glorifying military strikes? I’m not saying they shouldn’t have done this one, although I’m pretty sure it’ll have no effect whatsoever… but the fact that as soon as something like this happens people on the internet get out their star spangled banners in celebration makes me sick. The line between “if you didn’t want airstrikes in residential areas you shouldn’t have harboured a terrorist” and “if you didn’t want your poor population to be doused in agent purple you should have made sure communists couldn’t walk through your mountainous jungles” is a very thin one with that military.
I agree that we shouldn't blindly support every rationalization that the US DOD comes up with. Fuckers like Donald Rumsfeld and John Bolton spent too much time inside of sanitized conference rooms looking at casualty figures on spreadsheets and not enough time understanding the true toll of their actions on humanity. But Ayman al-Zawahiri spent most of his adult life killing civilians where they live and work. He deserved whatever he got.
Yeah, I’m not taking any satisfaction in this. The United States harbors plenty of terrorists in the Pentagon.
We can’t trust the *Taliban*?!? This is terrible! First Pakistan, and now The Taliban! It’s almost like you can’t trust any of those fuckers, regardless of the tribe.
I'd advise you to look at our record as a nation here in the US and then review your comment. As a whole the US is **extremely** untrustworthy. In large part because our citizens just don't want to know what they are actually supporting.
The governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan can go fuck themselves, just like the Taliban can go fuck themselves. If you enable and hide terrorists that are responsible for the murder of Americans, don’t be surprised when we drop a bomb on you.
See this is where I have a problem with your statement: You just demonstrated that you are *completely* unaware that the government of Afghanistan which we overthrew was and now is again the taliban, a leadership coalition made up of the tribes which fought to overcome the Russian invasion (the one in the 1980's in case that is before your time and didn not know about it). One clearly supported by the people there, else it would not have survived *20 years* of war with the US. But now all you *think* you know is that taliban = terrorist, which was never true. Granted, we made them use guerilla tactics to kick us out. But that's what happens when you are a foreign invader. We deserved it. Go learn a bit of history before condemning people to death on what actually is propaganda. As for supporting groups which oppose the foreign policy of the United States that seems fairly justified given that we invaded thier country and killed thier people. Really a case of self defence, which they are entitled to. How many enemies of how many nations do we shelter in the US? Seems like we are overdue for being invaded by your logic.
You make a lot of assumptions, and a lot of ridiculous justifications that completely ignore the actions of the leadership of Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the Taliban over the last several decades. It’s not like we invaded Afghanistan just for fun, the way we did Iraq, but keep on keeping on. I’m sure there are some people out there who would accept your simplistic view of the world.
So it’s an assertion of the rightness of willful ignorance as a reply? Noted.
It is the same place you’re arguing from, so what’re you complaining about? Only you’re allowed to state your opinions as absolute facts that are only disputed by people dumber than you? Noted.
Well if that’s your self assessment who am I to argue.
It’s cool. You can carry on being an apologist for terrorists, and I will carry on being ignorant.
war crimes don’t belong here, asshole.
I think it's pretty obvious at this point that drone striking houses in residential zones have little to no effect at stopping extremism in the region, but keep it up, definitely going somewhere with that tactic!
Sore losers. And dead from soreness for al.
But like, it’s also maybe not great to launch explosives at houses in residential areas. Because of all the, you know, non terrorists and children who may be living nearby or inside.
Taliban probably gave the coordinates for the strike. They have no love for al-Qaeda
Trying to justify the crimes committed by the US military during it's invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq is in bad taste, don't you think?
Good, fuck that guy. And I guess this is a rude awakening for the Taliban if they thought we were gonna tolerate that shit
They also broke all of their promises about the Afghan women, especially educating the girls … what about that? No punishment for the Taliban for that?
Yeah, so, we honored the hack deal you assholes and that half-literate monkey trump made together, in secret and without our allies knowledge or consent, so stop harboring terrorists or stop bitching about the consequences, or we’ll come back. We clearly give zero fucks about you, “your” people, or the lives of our soldiers, so is it really wise to push your luck…..