Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Asked about the strike that killed him, a senior adviser to the president's campaign suggests he should've "had a more responsible father."
Cornered by reporters with video cameras, former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, a senior adviser to President Obama's reelection campaign, attempted to defend the kill list that the Obama Administration uses to determine whose body should next be blown apart. American drone strikes have resulted in hundreds of dead innocents in the last four years, even as the program has killed a number of high-level al Qaeda terrorists. There are two remarkable things about the ensuing exchange, which eventually turns into a discussion about a dead 16-year-old kid:
Obama Top Adviser Robert Gibbs Justifies Murder of 16 Year Old American Citizen - YouTube
First, it's vital for the uninitiated to understand how Team Obama misleads when it talks about its drone program. Asked how their kill list can be justified, Gibbs replies that "When there are people who are trying to harm us, and have pledged to bring terror to these shores, we've taken that fight to them." Since the kill list itself is secret, there's no way to offer a specific counterexample. But we do know that U.S. drones are targeting people who've never pledged to carry out attacks in the United States. Take Pakistan, where the CIA kills some people without even knowing their identities. "As Obama nears the end of his term, officials said the kill list in Pakistan has slipped to fewer than 10 al-Qaeda targets, down from as many as two dozen," the Washington Post reports. "The agency now aims many of its Predator strikes at the Haqqani network, which has been blamed for attacks on U.S. forces in Afghanistan." The vast majority would never make their way to New York or Washington, D.C., and the Obama Administration would never agree to rules that permitted only the killing of threats to "the homeland."
How Team Obama Justifies the Killing of a 16-Year-Old American - Conor Friedersdorf - The AtlanticAsked about the strike that killed him, a senior adviser to the president's campaign suggests he should've "had a more responsible father."
Cornered by reporters with video cameras, former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, a senior adviser to President Obama's reelection campaign, attempted to defend the kill list that the Obama Administration uses to determine whose body should next be blown apart. American drone strikes have resulted in hundreds of dead innocents in the last four years, even as the program has killed a number of high-level al Qaeda terrorists. There are two remarkable things about the ensuing exchange, which eventually turns into a discussion about a dead 16-year-old kid:
Obama Top Adviser Robert Gibbs Justifies Murder of 16 Year Old American Citizen - YouTube
First, it's vital for the uninitiated to understand how Team Obama misleads when it talks about its drone program. Asked how their kill list can be justified, Gibbs replies that "When there are people who are trying to harm us, and have pledged to bring terror to these shores, we've taken that fight to them." Since the kill list itself is secret, there's no way to offer a specific counterexample. But we do know that U.S. drones are targeting people who've never pledged to carry out attacks in the United States. Take Pakistan, where the CIA kills some people without even knowing their identities. "As Obama nears the end of his term, officials said the kill list in Pakistan has slipped to fewer than 10 al-Qaeda targets, down from as many as two dozen," the Washington Post reports. "The agency now aims many of its Predator strikes at the Haqqani network, which has been blamed for attacks on U.S. forces in Afghanistan." The vast majority would never make their way to New York or Washington, D.C., and the Obama Administration would never agree to rules that permitted only the killing of threats to "the homeland."
I wish I could say his response is unbelievable, but, frankly, I have no problem believing this whatsoever. The man is a sociopath.
How Team Obama Justifies the Killing of a 16-Year-Old American - Conor Friedersdorf - The AtlanticAsked about the strike that killed him, a senior adviser to the president's campaign suggests he should've "had a more responsible father."
Cornered by reporters with video cameras, former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, a senior adviser to President Obama's reelection campaign, attempted to defend the kill list that the Obama Administration uses to determine whose body should next be blown apart. American drone strikes have resulted in hundreds of dead innocents in the last four years, even as the program has killed a number of high-level al Qaeda terrorists. There are two remarkable things about the ensuing exchange, which eventually turns into a discussion about a dead 16-year-old kid:
Obama Top Adviser Robert Gibbs Justifies Murder of 16 Year Old American Citizen - YouTube
First, it's vital for the uninitiated to understand how Team Obama misleads when it talks about its drone program. Asked how their kill list can be justified, Gibbs replies that "When there are people who are trying to harm us, and have pledged to bring terror to these shores, we've taken that fight to them." Since the kill list itself is secret, there's no way to offer a specific counterexample. But we do know that U.S. drones are targeting people who've never pledged to carry out attacks in the United States. Take Pakistan, where the CIA kills some people without even knowing their identities. "As Obama nears the end of his term, officials said the kill list in Pakistan has slipped to fewer than 10 al-Qaeda targets, down from as many as two dozen," the Washington Post reports. "The agency now aims many of its Predator strikes at the Haqqani network, which has been blamed for attacks on U.S. forces in Afghanistan." The vast majority would never make their way to New York or Washington, D.C., and the Obama Administration would never agree to rules that permitted only the killing of threats to "the homeland."
I wish I could say his response is unbelievable, but, frankly, I have no problem believing this whatsoever. The man is a sociopath.
I wonder just how many completely innocent civilians and other noncombatants were killed in 2003 as 'shock and awe' was unfolding on American television as the US bombing campaign of Baghdad was underway. If you recall, the bombing campaign started right after Bush had the UN withdraw their weapons inspectors who were going about their business. But I digress.
Yup, conservatives (and others, undoubtedly) sat in their living rooms waving their fists in the air while they stuffed their faces with fattening food and cheap American beer. Meanwhile, half a world away, countless (certainly in the 10s of 1,000s) of innocent men, women, and children were being killed, maimed, and/or ultimately became homeless in a dangerous war zone as shock and awe was underway. And since that day, I have not heard even ONE conservative utter a word of regret at all the "collateral damage" (otherwise known as the unintended deaths and suffering) caused by a conservative American president who prosecuted this "war of choice" for nonexistent WMDs.
Would you care to be the first one?
How Team Obama Justifies the Killing of a 16-Year-Old American - Conor Friedersdorf - The AtlanticAsked about the strike that killed him, a senior adviser to the president's campaign suggests he should've "had a more responsible father."
Cornered by reporters with video cameras, former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, a senior adviser to President Obama's reelection campaign, attempted to defend the kill list that the Obama Administration uses to determine whose body should next be blown apart. American drone strikes have resulted in hundreds of dead innocents in the last four years, even as the program has killed a number of high-level al Qaeda terrorists. There are two remarkable things about the ensuing exchange, which eventually turns into a discussion about a dead 16-year-old kid:
Obama Top Adviser Robert Gibbs Justifies Murder of 16 Year Old American Citizen - YouTube
First, it's vital for the uninitiated to understand how Team Obama misleads when it talks about its drone program. Asked how their kill list can be justified, Gibbs replies that "When there are people who are trying to harm us, and have pledged to bring terror to these shores, we've taken that fight to them." Since the kill list itself is secret, there's no way to offer a specific counterexample. But we do know that U.S. drones are targeting people who've never pledged to carry out attacks in the United States. Take Pakistan, where the CIA kills some people without even knowing their identities. "As Obama nears the end of his term, officials said the kill list in Pakistan has slipped to fewer than 10 al-Qaeda targets, down from as many as two dozen," the Washington Post reports. "The agency now aims many of its Predator strikes at the Haqqani network, which has been blamed for attacks on U.S. forces in Afghanistan." The vast majority would never make their way to New York or Washington, D.C., and the Obama Administration would never agree to rules that permitted only the killing of threats to "the homeland."
I wish I could say his response is unbelievable, but, frankly, I have no problem believing this whatsoever. The man is a sociopath.
I wonder just how many completely innocent civilians and other noncombatants were killed in 2003 as 'shock and awe' was unfolding on American television as the US bombing campaign of Baghdad was underway. If you recall, the bombing campaign started right after Bush had the UN withdraw their weapons inspectors who were going about their business. But I digress.
Yup, conservatives (and others, undoubtedly) sat in their living rooms waving their fists in the air while they stuffed their faces with fattening food and cheap American beer. Meanwhile, half a world away, countless (certainly in the 10s of 1,000s) of innocent men, women, and children were being killed, maimed, and/or ultimately became homeless in a dangerous war zone as shock and awe was underway. And since that day, I have not heard even ONE conservative utter a word of regret at all the "collateral damage" (otherwise known as the unintended deaths and suffering) caused by a conservative American president who prosecuted this "war of choice" for nonexistent WMDs.
Would you care to be the first one?
How Team Obama Justifies the Killing of a 16-Year-Old American - Conor Friedersdorf - The Atlantic
I wish I could say his response is unbelievable, but, frankly, I have no problem believing this whatsoever. The man is a sociopath.
I wonder just how many completely innocent civilians and other noncombatants were killed in 2003 as 'shock and awe' was unfolding on American television as the US bombing campaign of Baghdad was underway. If you recall, the bombing campaign started right after Bush had the UN withdraw their weapons inspectors who were going about their business. But I digress.
Yup, conservatives (and others, undoubtedly) sat in their living rooms waving their fists in the air while they stuffed their faces with fattening food and cheap American beer. Meanwhile, half a world away, countless (certainly in the 10s of 1,000s) of innocent men, women, and children were being killed, maimed, and/or ultimately became homeless in a dangerous war zone as shock and awe was underway. And since that day, I have not heard even ONE conservative utter a word of regret at all the "collateral damage" (otherwise known as the unintended deaths and suffering) caused by a conservative American president who prosecuted this "war of choice" for nonexistent WMDs.
Would you care to be the first one?
WTF does Bush have to do with Obama killing 16 year old boys? You on the left are so messed up I hope and pray you get your hat handed to you on election day.
How Team Obama Justifies the Killing of a 16-Year-Old American - Conor Friedersdorf - The Atlantic
I wish I could say his response is unbelievable, but, frankly, I have no problem believing this whatsoever. The man is a sociopath.
I wonder just how many completely innocent civilians and other noncombatants were killed in 2003 as 'shock and awe' was unfolding on American television as the US bombing campaign of Baghdad was underway. If you recall, the bombing campaign started right after Bush had the UN withdraw their weapons inspectors who were going about their business. But I digress.
Yup, conservatives (and others, undoubtedly) sat in their living rooms waving their fists in the air while they stuffed their faces with fattening food and cheap American beer. Meanwhile, half a world away, countless (certainly in the 10s of 1,000s) of innocent men, women, and children were being killed, maimed, and/or ultimately became homeless in a dangerous war zone as shock and awe was underway. And since that day, I have not heard even ONE conservative utter a word of regret at all the "collateral damage" (otherwise known as the unintended deaths and suffering) caused by a conservative American president who prosecuted this "war of choice" for nonexistent WMDs.
Would you care to be the first one?
WTF does Bush have to do with Obama killing 16 year old boys? You on the left are so messed up I hope and pray you get your hat handed to you on election day.
The boy was with legitimate terriorist targets, I'm as conservative as they come, but I have no problem wiith his being killed. His father brought him into the terriorist world and he stayed after his father was killed. There should be no place in the world these people can hide, if we find them and have the capability we should take them out. There should be absolutely no, no fire zones.
I wonder just how many completely innocent civilians and other noncombatants were killed in 2003 as 'shock and awe' was unfolding on American television as the US bombing campaign of Baghdad was underway. If you recall, the bombing campaign started right after Bush had the UN withdraw their weapons inspectors who were going about their business. But I digress.
Yup, conservatives (and others, undoubtedly) sat in their living rooms waving their fists in the air while they stuffed their faces with fattening food and cheap American beer. Meanwhile, half a world away, countless (certainly in the 10s of 1,000s) of innocent men, women, and children were being killed, maimed, and/or ultimately became homeless in a dangerous war zone as shock and awe was underway. And since that day, I have not heard even ONE conservative utter a word of regret at all the "collateral damage" (otherwise known as the unintended deaths and suffering) caused by a conservative American president who prosecuted this "war of choice" for nonexistent WMDs.
Would you care to be the first one?
WTF does Bush have to do with Obama killing 16 year old boys? You on the left are so messed up I hope and pray you get your hat handed to you on election day.
Hell....just the Bush SANCTIONS killed at least 100,000 Iraqi Children....without the need for high explosives
Sanctions against Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WTF does Bush have to do with Obama killing 16 year old boys? You on the left are so messed up I hope and pray you get your hat handed to you on election day.
Hell....just the Bush SANCTIONS killed at least 100,000 Iraqi Children....without the need for high explosives
Sanctions against Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Yes, Bush was a murderer too, along with Clinton and Bush Jr. They, however, never used drones to assassinate American citizens.
The boy was with legitimate terriorist targets, I'm as conservative as they come, but I have no problem wiith his being killed. His father brought him into the terriorist world and he stayed after his father was killed. There should be no place in the world these people can hide, if we find them and have the capability we should take them out. There should be absolutely no, no fire zones.
His cousin having a barbecue amounts to "legitimate terrorist targets?" Now I'm sure that's the U.S. government's story, so far as they're even willing to comment, which is not far, but we have to remember that their definition of combatant, or terrorist, is any military-age male who happens to be in a strike-zone. So you'll have to forgive me if I don't give much credence to the label "terrorist" when it's used by the administration.
Point of order:I wonder just how many completely innocent civilians and other noncombatants were killed in 2003 as 'shock and awe' was unfolding on American television as the US bombing campaign of Baghdad was underway. If you recall, the bombing campaign started right after Bush had the UN withdraw their weapons inspectors who were going about their business. But I digress.
Yup, conservatives (and others, undoubtedly) sat in their living rooms waving their fists in the air while they stuffed their faces with fattening food and cheap American beer. Meanwhile, half a world away, countless (certainly in the 10s of 1,000s) of innocent men, women, and children were being killed, maimed, and/or ultimately became homeless in a dangerous war zone as shock and awe was underway. And since that day, I have not heard even ONE conservative utter a word of regret at all the "collateral damage" (otherwise known as the unintended deaths and suffering) caused by a conservative American president who prosecuted this "war of choice" for nonexistent WMDs.
Would you care to be the first one?
WTF does Bush have to do with Obama killing 16 year old boys? You on the left are so messed up I hope and pray you get your hat handed to you on election day.
Hell....just the Bush SANCTIONS killed at least 100,000 Iraqi Children....without the need for high explosives
Sanctions against Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hell....just the Bush SANCTIONS killed at least 100,000 Iraqi Children....without the need for high explosives
Sanctions against Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Yes, Bush was a murderer too, along with Clinton and Bush Jr. They, however, never used drones to assassinate American citizens.
oh....you mean the traitor American who disowned his country, was a self proclaimed jihadist against his own country, a regional commander of Al-Quaida tried in-absentia by the Yemini government for attacks he carried out there and was wanted dead or alive, who's personal phone number was found during 9/11 investigations, wrote for a terrorist magazine?
Yeah....fuck him.
The boy was with legitimate terriorist targets, I'm as conservative as they come, but I have no problem wiith his being killed. His father brought him into the terriorist world and he stayed after his father was killed. There should be no place in the world these people can hide, if we find them and have the capability we should take them out. There should be absolutely no, no fire zones.
His cousin having a barbecue amounts to "legitimate terrorist targets?" Now I'm sure that's the U.S. government's story, so far as they're even willing to comment, which is not far, but we have to remember that their definition of combatant, or terrorist, is any military-age male who happens to be in a strike-zone. So you'll have to forgive me if I don't give much credence to the label "terrorist" when it's used by the administration.
The way I understood the story at the time was the kid was with two men that were targets. If that was indeed the case, I still have no problem with it.
Yes, Bush was a murderer too, along with Clinton and Bush Jr. They, however, never used drones to assassinate American citizens.
oh....you mean the traitor American who disowned his country, was a self proclaimed jihadist against his own country, a regional commander of Al-Quaida tried in-absentia by the Yemini government for attacks he carried out there and was wanted dead or alive, who's personal phone number was found during 9/11 investigations, wrote for a terrorist magazine?
Yeah....fuck him.
We're discussing Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, not Anwar al-Awlaki. Though, for the record, I still don't see where the administration is given the authority to assassinate any American citizen, regardless of what they've allegedly done, without due process of law.
His cousin having a barbecue amounts to "legitimate terrorist targets?" Now I'm sure that's the U.S. government's story, so far as they're even willing to comment, which is not far, but we have to remember that their definition of combatant, or terrorist, is any military-age male who happens to be in a strike-zone. So you'll have to forgive me if I don't give much credence to the label "terrorist" when it's used by the administration.
The way I understood the story at the time was the kid was with two men that were targets. If that was indeed the case, I still have no problem with it.
The way I understood it is that the administration won't even comment on what happened, so that's speculation as far as I can tell. Regardless, who's to say that just because they targeted somebody, keeping in mind their definition of "combatant," that it was justified?
His cousin having a barbecue amounts to "legitimate terrorist targets?" Now I'm sure that's the U.S. government's story, so far as they're even willing to comment, which is not far, but we have to remember that their definition of combatant, or terrorist, is any military-age male who happens to be in a strike-zone. So you'll have to forgive me if I don't give much credence to the label "terrorist" when it's used by the administration.
The way I understood the story at the time was the kid was with two men that were targets. If that was indeed the case, I still have no problem with it.
The way I understood it is that the administration won't even comment on what happened, so that's speculation as far as I can tell. Regardless, who's to say that just because they targeted somebody, keeping in mind their definition of "combatant," that it was justified?
How Team Obama Justifies the Killing of a 16-Year-Old American - Conor Friedersdorf - The AtlanticAsked about the strike that killed him, a senior adviser to the president's campaign suggests he should've "had a more responsible father."
Cornered by reporters with video cameras, former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, a senior adviser to President Obama's reelection campaign, attempted to defend the kill list that the Obama Administration uses to determine whose body should next be blown apart. American drone strikes have resulted in hundreds of dead innocents in the last four years, even as the program has killed a number of high-level al Qaeda terrorists. There are two remarkable things about the ensuing exchange, which eventually turns into a discussion about a dead 16-year-old kid:
Obama Top Adviser Robert Gibbs Justifies Murder of 16 Year Old American Citizen - YouTube
First, it's vital for the uninitiated to understand how Team Obama misleads when it talks about its drone program. Asked how their kill list can be justified, Gibbs replies that "When there are people who are trying to harm us, and have pledged to bring terror to these shores, we've taken that fight to them." Since the kill list itself is secret, there's no way to offer a specific counterexample. But we do know that U.S. drones are targeting people who've never pledged to carry out attacks in the United States. Take Pakistan, where the CIA kills some people without even knowing their identities. "As Obama nears the end of his term, officials said the kill list in Pakistan has slipped to fewer than 10 al-Qaeda targets, down from as many as two dozen," the Washington Post reports. "The agency now aims many of its Predator strikes at the Haqqani network, which has been blamed for attacks on U.S. forces in Afghanistan." The vast majority would never make their way to New York or Washington, D.C., and the Obama Administration would never agree to rules that permitted only the killing of threats to "the homeland."
I wish I could say his response is unbelievable, but, frankly, I have no problem believing this whatsoever. The man is a sociopath.
I wonder just how many completely innocent civilians and other noncombatants were killed in 2003 as 'shock and awe' was unfolding on American television as the US bombing campaign of Baghdad was underway. If you recall, the bombing campaign started right after Bush had the UN withdraw their weapons inspectors who were going about their business. But I digress.
Yup, conservatives (and others, undoubtedly) sat in their living rooms waving their fists in the air while they stuffed their faces with fattening food and cheap American beer. Meanwhile, half a world away, countless (certainly in the 10s of 1,000s) of innocent men, women, and children were being killed, maimed, and/or ultimately became homeless in a dangerous war zone as shock and awe was underway. And since that day, I have not heard even ONE conservative utter a word of regret at all the "collateral damage" (otherwise known as the unintended deaths and suffering) caused by a conservative American president who prosecuted this "war of choice" for nonexistent WMDs.
Would you care to be the first one?
The way I understood the story at the time was the kid was with two men that were targets. If that was indeed the case, I still have no problem with it.
The way I understood it is that the administration won't even comment on what happened, so that's speculation as far as I can tell. Regardless, who's to say that just because they targeted somebody, keeping in mind their definition of "combatant," that it was justified?
The administration did comment....they said he wasn't the target and he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.....that they didn't know he was present.
oh....you mean the traitor American who disowned his country, was a self proclaimed jihadist against his own country, a regional commander of Al-Quaida tried in-absentia by the Yemini government for attacks he carried out there and was wanted dead or alive, who's personal phone number was found during 9/11 investigations, wrote for a terrorist magazine?
Yeah....fuck him.
We're discussing Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, not Anwar al-Awlaki. Though, for the record, I still don't see where the administration is given the authority to assassinate any American citizen, regardless of what they've allegedly done, without due process of law.
Was he the target of the attack? What was he doing with Al Quaida people? Did the US government know he was with the target beforehand?
I think that saying he was "assassinated" is quite the stretch.
