Obama Killed a 16-Year-Old American in Yemen. Trump Just Killed His 8-Year-Old Sister.

[Godboy]

When mooselimbs stop deliberately killing innocent people I'll give a fuck when someone kills their people.

Not before then.

So you're a nut job.

...and you're unrealistic about casualties of war.

I'm entirely realistic. What I'm not is someone who devalues human life.

Is it realistic to demand no casualties of war? Can you name a war like that ever in history? If not, you are being incredibly unrealistic.

 

[Pete7469]

I'm entirely realistic. What I'm not is someone who devalues human life.

You're entirely insipid. Muslims devalue their own lives by refusing to purge the so called "extremists" from their cult.

 

[Sundance508]

In 2010, President Obama directed the CIA to assassinate an American citizen in Yemen, Anwar al-Awlaki, despite the fact that he had never been charged with (let alone convicted of) any crime, and the agency successfully carried out that order a year later with a September, 2011 drone strike. While that assassination created widespread debate – the once-again-beloved ACLU sued Obama to restrain him from the assassination on the ground of due process and then, when that suit was dismissed, sued Obama again after the killing was carried out – another killing carried out shortly thereafter was perhaps even more significant yet generated relatively little attention.

Two weeks after the killing of Awlaki, a separate CIA drone strike in Yemen killed his 16-year-old American-born son, Abdulrahman, along with the boy’s 17-year-old cousin and several other innocent Yemenis. The U.S. eventually claimed that the boy was not their target but merely “collateral damage.” Abdulrahman’s grief-stricken grandfather, Nasser al-Awlaki, urged the Washington Post “to visit a Facebook memorial page for Abdulrahman,” which explained: “Look at his pictures, his friends, and his hobbies His Facebook page shows a typical kid.”

Few events pulled the mask off Obama officials like this one. It highlighted how the Obama administration was ravaging Yemen, one of the world’s poorest countries: just weeks after he won the Nobel Prize, Obama used cluster bombs that killed 35 Yemeni women and children. Even Obama-supporting liberal comedians mocked the Obama DOJ’s arguments for why it had the right to execute Americans with no charges: “Due Process Just Means There’s A Process That You Do,” snarked Stephen Colbert. And a firestorm erupted when former Obama Press Secretary Robert Gibbs offered a sociopathic justification for killing the Colorado-born teenager, apparently blaming him for his own killing by saying he should have “had a more responsible father.”

Obama Killed a 16-Year-Old American in Yemen. Trump Just Killed His 8-Year-Old Sister.

“Why kill children?,” the grandfather asked. “This is the new (U.S.) administration – it’s very sad, a big crime.”

Unfortunately there's nothing new about the U.S. government killing children in the Middle East.

Good.

Killing children is good. Criminally insane.

You have a overly simplistic and extremely shallow perspective....no one has said War is good.....no one knows just how horrific and terrible war is than those who have fought it....in War good people die, children die and it is always a very violent and terrible thing...yet we did not start the war......War was declared on us by the islamic terrorists...it is to them you should take your complaints.

A free people must be willing to fight to preserve their freedoms and sacrifices must be made.....we should always honor those who lay down their lives for America. Of course if a people do not have the courage to fight they can surrender and submit to whatever their foe wishes to do.....do you belong to that group? Quite sad if you are an American.

Yes....it is quite tragic when innocents die....most especially children...to prevent that and to prevent war one must be prepared to fight...if our enemies understand our strength they are less likely to start a war.

Unfortunately...islamic fanatics think they are stronger, think that if they kill enough Americans we will surrender....they made a big mistake...they thought the majority of Americans were like you and your ilk.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

When mooselimbs stop deliberately killing innocent people I'll give a fuck when someone kills their people.

Not before then.

So you're a nut job.

...and you're unrealistic about casualties of war.

I'm entirely realistic. What I'm not is someone who devalues human life.

Is it realistic to demand no casualties of war? Can you name a war like that ever in history? If not, you are being incredibly unrealistic.

It's realistic to demand that we not engage in military activities in countries that we have not legally declared war on and it's realistic to demand that our political and military leaders not lie to us about the results of said activities.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

In 2010, President Obama directed the CIA to assassinate an American citizen in Yemen, Anwar al-Awlaki, despite the fact that he had never been charged with (let alone convicted of) any crime, and the agency successfully carried out that order a year later with a September, 2011 drone strike. While that assassination created widespread debate – the once-again-beloved ACLU sued Obama to restrain him from the assassination on the ground of due process and then, when that suit was dismissed, sued Obama again after the killing was carried out – another killing carried out shortly thereafter was perhaps even more significant yet generated relatively little attention.

Two weeks after the killing of Awlaki, a separate CIA drone strike in Yemen killed his 16-year-old American-born son, Abdulrahman, along with the boy’s 17-year-old cousin and several other innocent Yemenis. The U.S. eventually claimed that the boy was not their target but merely “collateral damage.” Abdulrahman’s grief-stricken grandfather, Nasser al-Awlaki, urged the Washington Post “to visit a Facebook memorial page for Abdulrahman,” which explained: “Look at his pictures, his friends, and his hobbies His Facebook page shows a typical kid.”

Few events pulled the mask off Obama officials like this one. It highlighted how the Obama administration was ravaging Yemen, one of the world’s poorest countries: just weeks after he won the Nobel Prize, Obama used cluster bombs that killed 35 Yemeni women and children. Even Obama-supporting liberal comedians mocked the Obama DOJ’s arguments for why it had the right to execute Americans with no charges: “Due Process Just Means There’s A Process That You Do,” snarked Stephen Colbert. And a firestorm erupted when former Obama Press Secretary Robert Gibbs offered a sociopathic justification for killing the Colorado-born teenager, apparently blaming him for his own killing by saying he should have “had a more responsible father.”

Obama Killed a 16-Year-Old American in Yemen. Trump Just Killed His 8-Year-Old Sister.

“Why kill children?,” the grandfather asked. “This is the new (U.S.) administration – it’s very sad, a big crime.”

Unfortunately there's nothing new about the U.S. government killing children in the Middle East.

Good.

Killing children is good. Criminally insane.

You have a overly simplistic and extremely shallow perspective....no one has said War is good.....no one knows just how horrific and terrible war is than those who have fought it....in War good people die, children die and it is always a very violent and terrible thing...yet we did not start the war......War was declared on us by the islamic terrorists...it is to them you should take your complaints.

A free people must be willing to fight to preserve their freedoms and sacrifices must be made.....we should always honor those who lay down their lives for America. Of course if a people do not have the courage to fight they can surrender and submit to whatever their foe wishes to do.....do you belong to that group? Quite sad if you are an American.

Yes....it is quite tragic when innocents die....most especially children...to prevent that and to prevent war one must be prepared to fight...if our enemies understand our strength they are less likely to start a war.

Unfortunately...islamic fanatics think they are stronger, think that if they kill enough Americans we will surrender....they made a big mistake...they thought the majority of Americans were like you and your ilk.

People have literally said that in this thread, including the person I quoted in the post of mine that you're quoting. Are you serious? Furthermore, we've been showing our strength for decades now, and somehow the situation just keeps getting worse.

 

[depotoo]

And we haven't the slightest idea as to how they died as one of our own was killed and others injured in that attack. There is no confirmation as to how the attack went down.

 

[EverCurious]

True. It's entirely possible the little girl was shot by cross-fire from ISIS.


Personally, I'd prefer to hand the whole kit-n-kabootle over to the countries over there to deal with. Let them sort it out unless ISIS attacks us again. Everyone on the planet has been bitching that the mess over there is our fault, (and frankly I agree with that assessment.) We need to butt out and give them the opportunity to see if they can fix it because we just made it worse.

 

[Godboy]

When mooselimbs stop deliberately killing innocent people I'll give a fuck when someone kills their people.

Not before then.

So you're a nut job.

...and you're unrealistic about casualties of war.

I'm entirely realistic. What I'm not is someone who devalues human life.

Is it realistic to demand no casualties of war? Can you name a war like that ever in history? If not, you are being incredibly unrealistic.

It's realistic to demand that we not engage in military activities in countries that we have not legally declared war on and it's realistic to demand that our political and military leaders not lie to us about the results of said activities.

You're saying that as a guy who doesn't have a grasp on how things really are. I don't either. I haven't worked in the Pentagon for 20 years in high level positions. One thing we do know is, even a bleeding heart liberal like Obama quickly realized he couldn't solve everything diplomatically. He is the drone strike king.

You have to admit to yourself that you really don't know enough to make such definitive statements about warfare. There's a reason why every president does it, regardless of their political or ideological beliefs.

 

[LuckyDuck]

In 2010, President Obama directed the CIA to assassinate an American citizen in Yemen, Anwar al-Awlaki, despite the fact that he had never been charged with (let alone convicted of) any crime, and the agency successfully carried out that order a year later with a September, 2011 drone strike. While that assassination created widespread debate – the once-again-beloved ACLU sued Obama to restrain him from the assassination on the ground of due process and then, when that suit was dismissed, sued Obama again after the killing was carried out – another killing carried out shortly thereafter was perhaps even more significant yet generated relatively little attention.

Two weeks after the killing of Awlaki, a separate CIA drone strike in Yemen killed his 16-year-old American-born son, Abdulrahman, along with the boy’s 17-year-old cousin and several other innocent Yemenis. The U.S. eventually claimed that the boy was not their target but merely “collateral damage.” Abdulrahman’s grief-stricken grandfather, Nasser al-Awlaki, urged the Washington Post “to visit a Facebook memorial page for Abdulrahman,” which explained: “Look at his pictures, his friends, and his hobbies His Facebook page shows a typical kid.”

Few events pulled the mask off Obama officials like this one. It highlighted how the Obama administration was ravaging Yemen, one of the world’s poorest countries: just weeks after he won the Nobel Prize, Obama used cluster bombs that killed 35 Yemeni women and children. Even Obama-supporting liberal comedians mocked the Obama DOJ’s arguments for why it had the right to execute Americans with no charges: “Due Process Just Means There’s A Process That You Do,” snarked Stephen Colbert. And a firestorm erupted when former Obama Press Secretary Robert Gibbs offered a sociopathic justification for killing the Colorado-born teenager, apparently blaming him for his own killing by saying he should have “had a more responsible father.”

Obama Killed a 16-Year-Old American in Yemen. Trump Just Killed His 8-Year-Old Sister.

“Why kill children?,” the grandfather asked. “This is the new (U.S.) administration – it’s very sad, a big crime.”
Why kill children? Well, eight children were murdered by Islam on 9/11. Payback's a bitch.
Unfortunately there's nothing new about the U.S. government killing children in the Middle East.

 

[Iceweasel]

It's realistic to demand that we not engage in military activities in countries that we have not legally declared war on and it's realistic to demand that our political and military leaders not lie to us about the results of said activities.

Your problem is that you are unaware that we aren't fighting a country, we are fighting a movement and that movement has declared war on the west. We've seen the cost of doing nothing. I don't know what your solution is, have you ever offered one up?

 

[there4eyeM]

If the 'fight' is not against a country, what does banning travel from just certain countries accomplish? Full screening of every individual into the U.S. would be the logical action.

 

[Iceweasel]

If the 'fight' is not against a country, what does banning travel from just certain countries accomplish? Full screening of every individual into the U.S. would be the logical action.

...and take forever. The countries are known hotspots of extremism. It's common sense stuff.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So you're a nut job.

...and you're unrealistic about casualties of war.

I'm entirely realistic. What I'm not is someone who devalues human life.

Is it realistic to demand no casualties of war? Can you name a war like that ever in history? If not, you are being incredibly unrealistic.

It's realistic to demand that we not engage in military activities in countries that we have not legally declared war on and it's realistic to demand that our political and military leaders not lie to us about the results of said activities.

You're saying that as a guy who doesn't have a grasp on how things really are. I don't either. I haven't worked in the Pentagon for 20 years in high level positions. One thing we do know is, even a bleeding heart liberal like Obama quickly realized he couldn't solve everything diplomatically. He is the drone strike king.

You have to admit to yourself that you really don't know enough to make such definitive statements about warfare. There's a reason why every president does it, regardless of their political or ideological beliefs.

Yes, there is a reason every politician does it: Boeing and such pays them a lot of money to do so. Shocking.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It's realistic to demand that we not engage in military activities in countries that we have not legally declared war on and it's realistic to demand that our political and military leaders not lie to us about the results of said activities.

Your problem is that you are unaware that we aren't fighting a country, we are fighting a movement and that movement has declared war on the west. We've seen the cost of doing nothing. I don't know what your solution is, have you ever offered one up?

Yes, my solution is to leave them alone. Get the military out of their countries, stop bombing them, stop propping up repressive regimes, stop arming terrorists, and stop starving them through sanctions that never hurt the government but always the people. In short, treat them the way we'd like to be treated.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If the 'fight' is not against a country, what does banning travel from just certain countries accomplish? Full screening of every individual into the U.S. would be the logical action.

...and take forever. The countries are known hotspots of extremism. It's common sense stuff.

And yet Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the UAE are worse. Why aren't they on the list? Because they're some of our favorite dictators.

 

[Iceweasel]

It's realistic to demand that we not engage in military activities in countries that we have not legally declared war on and it's realistic to demand that our political and military leaders not lie to us about the results of said activities.

Your problem is that you are unaware that we aren't fighting a country, we are fighting a movement and that movement has declared war on the west. We've seen the cost of doing nothing. I don't know what your solution is, have you ever offered one up?

Yes, my solution is to leave them alone. Get the military out of their countries, stop bombing them, stop propping up repressive regimes, stop arming terrorists, and stop starving them through sanctions that never hurt the government but always the people. In short, treat them the way we'd like to be treated.

You mean like the Germans right? It must be all the Panzer divisions all over the middle east that has them riled up.

 

[Iceweasel]

If the 'fight' is not against a country, what does banning travel from just certain countries accomplish? Full screening of every individual into the U.S. would be the logical action.

...and take forever. The countries are known hotspots of extremism. It's common sense stuff.

And yet Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the UAE are worse. Why aren't they on the list? Because they're some of our favorite dictators.

What's your source that European terrorism comes from there?

 

[rdean]

This is like Solyndra only different. Started by Bush, designed by Bush, pushed by Bush, but Obama's fault.

Yemen, designed by Obama, pushed by Obama, started by Obama, fucked up by Trump, but Obama's fault.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It's realistic to demand that we not engage in military activities in countries that we have not legally declared war on and it's realistic to demand that our political and military leaders not lie to us about the results of said activities.

Your problem is that you are unaware that we aren't fighting a country, we are fighting a movement and that movement has declared war on the west. We've seen the cost of doing nothing. I don't know what your solution is, have you ever offered one up?

Yes, my solution is to leave them alone. Get the military out of their countries, stop bombing them, stop propping up repressive regimes, stop arming terrorists, and stop starving them through sanctions that never hurt the government but always the people. In short, treat them the way we'd like to be treated.

You mean like the Germans right? It must be all the Panzer divisions all over the middle east that has them riled up.

You mean the Nazis who came to power only because of the punitive sanctions in the Treaty of Versailles that was only possible because Woodrow Wilson just had to be involved in WWI?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If the 'fight' is not against a country, what does banning travel from just certain countries accomplish? Full screening of every individual into the U.S. would be the logical action.

...and take forever. The countries are known hotspots of extremism. It's common sense stuff.

What's your source that American terrorism comes from the countries Trump listed?