What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Eliminating The Confusion Americans Have About al-Awlaki

IndependntLogic

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
2,997
Reaction score
399
Points
48
Lots of spirited debates going on about this.
Liberals claiming it is wrong to kill this guy because he's American.
Conservatives claiming it's wrong because Obama ordered it and they now have an ACLU alter-ego.
Liberals claiming it's okay because Bush isn't doing it.
Both sides citing the USC, UCMJ etc...


So okay, here's the thing.

This is about the fact that we now have an enemy without a politically defined boundary on a map somewhere. We didn't have that a couple hundred years ago unless you count indians and look what we did to them. So let's put it in a perspective that may offer some clarity.

Let's say there was a COUNTRY of AlQaedia that you could point to on a map. That country was a religious theocracy run by whackjobs who declared war on lots of countries, including the USA.
So if a US citizen moved there, became a citizen of AlQaedia, adopted their ways, joined their military, became a leading figure in that country's attacks against us and then was killed by a drone, what would people say? There would be no questioning the Constitutionality of it and his former status as a US citizen would not be a factor because he was now an AlQeadian. Enemy Combatant & Casualty of War, plain & simple.

So that's exactly what happened. Al Qaeda has a political structure & government, public relations, defined heirarchy, military etc... And they have declared war on us and killed US citizens.
The only difference is these particluar whackjobs don't have a country on a map somewhere. That is the only reason there is any argument over this.
 
Last edited:

Si modo

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2009
Messages
44,120
Reaction score
7,134
Points
1,830
Location
Fairfax, Virginia
While I appreciate your attempt to school us, I prefer other reading material, like the 5th Amendment of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution.

But, thanks for thinking that you needed to rationalize when the Bill of Rights applies.

No, really.

Thanks for the attempt.
 

Quantum Windbag

Gold Member
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
58,308
Reaction score
5,093
Points
245
Lots of spirited debates going on about this.
Liberals claiming it is wrong to kill this guy because he's American.
Conservatives claiming it's wrong because Obama ordered it and they now have an ACLU alter-ego.
Liberals claiming it's okay because Bush isn't doing it.
Both sides citing the USC, UCMJ etc...

You idiocy knows no bounds.

Can you point out anyone who said it was OK because it was not Bush, or wrong because Obama killed him?

So okay, here's the thing.

This is about the fact that we now have an enemy without a politically defined boundary on a map somewhere. We didn't have that a couple hundred years ago unless you count indians and look what we did to them. So let's put it in a perspective that may offer some clarity.

Let's say there was a COUNTRY of AlQaedia that you could point to on a map. That country was a religious theocracy run by whackjobs who declared war on lots of countries, including the USA.
So if a US citizen moved there, became a citizen of AlQaedia, adopted their ways, joined their military, became a leading figure in that country's attacks against us and then was killed by a drone, what would people say? There would be no questioning the Constitutionality of it and his former status as a US citizen would not be a factor because he was now an AlQeadian. Enemy Combatant & Casualty of War, plain & simple.

So that's exactly what happened. Al Qaeda has a political structure & government, public relations, defined heirarchy, military etc... And they have declared war on us and killed US citizens.
The only difference is these particluar whackjobs don't have a country on a map somewhere. That is the only reason there is any argument over this.

That is not what happened.

What happened is that the government, without any oversight or review, arbitrarily decided that someone was an enemy combatant despite the fact that there is no public evidence that he ever shot at anyone, participated in any attack, or even told someone how to do anything.
 
OP
IndependntLogic

IndependntLogic

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
2,997
Reaction score
399
Points
48
Lots of spirited debates going on about this.
Liberals claiming it is wrong to kill this guy because he's American.
Conservatives claiming it's wrong because Obama ordered it and they now have an ACLU alter-ego.
Liberals claiming it's okay because Bush isn't doing it.
Both sides citing the USC, UCMJ etc...

You idiocy knows no bounds.

Can you point out anyone who said it was OK because it was not Bush, or wrong because Obama killed him?

So okay, here's the thing.

This is about the fact that we now have an enemy without a politically defined boundary on a map somewhere. We didn't have that a couple hundred years ago unless you count indians and look what we did to them. So let's put it in a perspective that may offer some clarity.

Let's say there was a COUNTRY of AlQaedia that you could point to on a map. That country was a religious theocracy run by whackjobs who declared war on lots of countries, including the USA.
So if a US citizen moved there, became a citizen of AlQaedia, adopted their ways, joined their military, became a leading figure in that country's attacks against us and then was killed by a drone, what would people say? There would be no questioning the Constitutionality of it and his former status as a US citizen would not be a factor because he was now an AlQeadian. Enemy Combatant & Casualty of War, plain & simple.

So that's exactly what happened. Al Qaeda has a political structure & government, public relations, defined heirarchy, military etc... And they have declared war on us and killed US citizens.
The only difference is these particluar whackjobs don't have a country on a map somewhere. That is the only reason there is any argument over this.

That is not what happened.

What happened is that the government, without any oversight or review, arbitrarily decided that someone was an enemy combatant despite the fact that there is no public evidence that he ever shot at anyone, participated in any attack, or even told someone how to do anything.

Ah my favorite pet! I once had a dog who would follow me everywhere and now I have you! How cute.

Yeah, there was no trial, evidence etc... for Osama bin Laden either. Oh how I weep for both for them...
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
72,722
Reaction score
40,448
Points
2,615
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
The roster of nutbars coming out in favor of international political assassination and summary execution today has been quite amusing....In a black humor sort of fashion.

Hell, at least Göring, Hess and von Ribbentrop were given the courtesy of an ex post facto kangaroo court trial.
 
Last edited:

yidnar

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2011
Messages
13,085
Reaction score
5,936
Points
355
Location
Inside your head.
Lots of spirited debates going on about this.
Liberals claiming it is wrong to kill this guy because he's American.
Conservatives claiming it's wrong because Obama ordered it and they now have an ACLU alter-ego.
Liberals claiming it's okay because Bush isn't doing it.
Both sides citing the USC, UCMJ etc...

You idiocy knows no bounds.

Can you point out anyone who said it was OK because it was not Bush, or wrong because Obama killed him?

So okay, here's the thing.

This is about the fact that we now have an enemy without a politically defined boundary on a map somewhere. We didn't have that a couple hundred years ago unless you count indians and look what we did to them. So let's put it in a perspective that may offer some clarity.

Let's say there was a COUNTRY of AlQaedia that you could point to on a map. That country was a religious theocracy run by whackjobs who declared war on lots of countries, including the USA.
So if a US citizen moved there, became a citizen of AlQaedia, adopted their ways, joined their military, became a leading figure in that country's attacks against us and then was killed by a drone, what would people say? There would be no questioning the Constitutionality of it and his former status as a US citizen would not be a factor because he was now an AlQeadian. Enemy Combatant & Casualty of War, plain & simple.

So that's exactly what happened. Al Qaeda has a political structure & government, public relations, defined heirarchy, military etc... And they have declared war on us and killed US citizens.
The only difference is these particluar whackjobs don't have a country on a map somewhere. That is the only reason there is any argument over this.

That is not what happened.

What happened is that the government, without any oversight or review, arbitrarily decided that someone was an enemy combatant despite the fact that there is no public evidence that he ever shot at anyone, participated in any attack, or even told someone how to do anything.
we are at war with Al Qaeda ....and he was a top leader of Al Qaeda .......so we Xd the treasonous bastard !!! whats the problem ???:eusa_eh:
 
OP
IndependntLogic

IndependntLogic

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
2,997
Reaction score
399
Points
48
The roster of nutbars coming out in favor of international political assassination and summary execution today has been quite amusing....In a black humor sort of fashion.

Hell, at least Göring, Hess and von Ribbentrop were given the courtesy of an ex post facto kangaroo court trial.

God the hypocrisy of the Liberals By Convenience (i.e. supposed Conservatives) is entertaining! :lol:
You sound like a member of the ACLU!
 

Liability

Locked Account.
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
35,447
Reaction score
5,178
Points
48
Location
Mansion in Ravi's Head
The roster of nutbars coming out in favor of international political assassination and summary execution today has been quite amusing....In a black humor sort of fashion.

Hell, at least Göring, Hess and von Ribbentrop were given the courtesy of an ex post facto kangaroo court trial.

God the hypocrisy of the Liberals By Convenience (i.e. supposed Conservatives) is entertaining! :lol:
You sound like a member of the ACLU!

I rarely disagree with Oddball, although in this matter, I do.

Still, he's got a certain formal consistency of logic and a dedication to the meaning and purpose of the Constitution that warrants praise, not your condemnation.
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
72,722
Reaction score
40,448
Points
2,615
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
The roster of nutbars coming out in favor of international political assassination and summary execution today has been quite amusing....In a black humor sort of fashion.

Hell, at least Göring, Hess and von Ribbentrop were given the courtesy of an ex post facto kangaroo court trial.

God the hypocrisy of the Liberals By Convenience (i.e. supposed Conservatives) is entertaining! :lol:
You sound like a member of the ACLU!
Fuck you, asshole.

I'd be all for lining him up and having him shot, were there any credible charge brought against the freak, and even a cursory stab at military justice brought to bear....Like I said, at least the Nazis got a show trail.

But you go ahead and be on the side of political assassination and summary execution...It fits you well.
 
Last edited:
OP
IndependntLogic

IndependntLogic

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
2,997
Reaction score
399
Points
48
The roster of nutbars coming out in favor of international political assassination and summary execution today has been quite amusing....In a black humor sort of fashion.

Hell, at least Göring, Hess and von Ribbentrop were given the courtesy of an ex post facto kangaroo court trial.

God the hypocrisy of the Liberals By Convenience (i.e. supposed Conservatives) is entertaining! :lol:
You sound like a member of the ACLU!
Fuck you, asshole.

I'd be all for lining him up and having him shot, were there any credible charge brought against the freak, and even a cursory stab at military justice brought to bear....Like I said, at least the Nazis got a show trail.

But you go ahead and be on the side of political assassination and summary execution...It fits you well.

Awww you're all upset. Sorry sweetheart, didn't realize you were so sensitive and that this would send you into hysterics. I assumed you were a man because of your avatar (which btw, depicts my favorite character from KH).
So look, if it makes you feel better to swear and stomp your little feeties, you just go right ahead. Maybe have some nice chai tea afterward, sit around with some girlfriends and talk about how that mean ol' vet just didn't have any sympathy at all for the nice terrorist you care so much about. Then go take a bubble bath and when you've composed yourself, we can be new BFF's! :lol:
 

MeBelle

MeBelle 4 Prez 2024
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 16, 2011
Messages
20,850
Reaction score
10,408
Points
930
ARGHHHHHHHHHHH!!


"The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance."

He was a NOT a CITIZEN of the US. He was a DUAL NATIONAL.

Anwar al-Awlaki - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Clincher:
Al-Awlaki returned to Colorado in 1991 to attend college. He earned a B.S. in Civil Engineering from Colorado State University (1994), where he was President of the Muslim Student Association. He attended the university on a foreign student visa and a government scholarship from Yemen, apparently by claiming to be born in that country, according to a former U.S. security agent

Yemen:
Al-Awlaki was believed to be in hiding in Southeast Yemen in the last years of his life. The Yemenese government began trying him in absentia in November 2010, for plotting to kill foreigners and being a member of al-Qaeda, and a Yemeni judge ordered that he be captured "dead or alive".
 
OP
IndependntLogic

IndependntLogic

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
2,997
Reaction score
399
Points
48
The roster of nutbars coming out in favor of international political assassination and summary execution today has been quite amusing....In a black humor sort of fashion.

Hell, at least Göring, Hess and von Ribbentrop were given the courtesy of an ex post facto kangaroo court trial.

God the hypocrisy of the Liberals By Convenience (i.e. supposed Conservatives) is entertaining! :lol:
You sound like a member of the ACLU!

I rarely disagree with Oddball, although in this matter, I do.

Still, he's got a certain formal consistency of logic and a dedication to the meaning and purpose of the Constitution that warrants praise, not your condemnation.

I respect that and coming from you, okay. I like a lot of your posts. But Oddball came out swinging so f*ck him is he (she?) wants to get all pissy and become a temporary member of the ACLU for a day.
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
72,722
Reaction score
40,448
Points
2,615
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
God the hypocrisy of the Liberals By Convenience (i.e. supposed Conservatives) is entertaining! :lol:
You sound like a member of the ACLU!
Fuck you, asshole.

I'd be all for lining him up and having him shot, were there any credible charge brought against the freak, and even a cursory stab at military justice brought to bear....Like I said, at least the Nazis got a show trail.

But you go ahead and be on the side of political assassination and summary execution...It fits you well.

Awww you're all upset. Sorry sweetheart, didn't realize you were so sensitive and that this would send you into hysterics. I assumed you were a man because of your avatar (which btw, depicts my favorite character from KH).
So look, if it makes you feel better to swear and stomp your little feeties, you just go right ahead. Maybe have some nice chai tea afterward, sit around with some girlfriends and talk about how that mean ol' vet just didn't have any sympathy at all for the nice terrorist you care so much about. Then go take a bubble bath and when you've composed yourself, we can be new BFF's! :lol:
I'm not upset and you're still a bloodlusting asshole....It's all good.
 

Quantum Windbag

Gold Member
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
58,308
Reaction score
5,093
Points
245
Lots of spirited debates going on about this.
Liberals claiming it is wrong to kill this guy because he's American.
Conservatives claiming it's wrong because Obama ordered it and they now have an ACLU alter-ego.
Liberals claiming it's okay because Bush isn't doing it.
Both sides citing the USC, UCMJ etc...

You idiocy knows no bounds.

Can you point out anyone who said it was OK because it was not Bush, or wrong because Obama killed him?

So okay, here's the thing.

This is about the fact that we now have an enemy without a politically defined boundary on a map somewhere. We didn't have that a couple hundred years ago unless you count indians and look what we did to them. So let's put it in a perspective that may offer some clarity.

Let's say there was a COUNTRY of AlQaedia that you could point to on a map. That country was a religious theocracy run by whackjobs who declared war on lots of countries, including the USA.
So if a US citizen moved there, became a citizen of AlQaedia, adopted their ways, joined their military, became a leading figure in that country's attacks against us and then was killed by a drone, what would people say? There would be no questioning the Constitutionality of it and his former status as a US citizen would not be a factor because he was now an AlQeadian. Enemy Combatant & Casualty of War, plain & simple.

So that's exactly what happened. Al Qaeda has a political structure & government, public relations, defined heirarchy, military etc... And they have declared war on us and killed US citizens.
The only difference is these particluar whackjobs don't have a country on a map somewhere. That is the only reason there is any argument over this.

That is not what happened.

What happened is that the government, without any oversight or review, arbitrarily decided that someone was an enemy combatant despite the fact that there is no public evidence that he ever shot at anyone, participated in any attack, or even told someone how to do anything.

Ah my favorite pet! I once had a dog who would follow me everywhere and now I have you! How cute.

Yeah, there was no trial, evidence etc... for Osama bin Laden either. Oh how I weep for both for them...

What about your idiotic claim that some people think this was good because it wasn't Bush, and some think it was good because it was Obama?
 
OP
IndependntLogic

IndependntLogic

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
2,997
Reaction score
399
Points
48
You idiocy knows no bounds.

Can you point out anyone who said it was OK because it was not Bush, or wrong because Obama killed him?
That is not what happened.

What happened is that the government, without any oversight or review, arbitrarily decided that someone was an enemy combatant despite the fact that there is no public evidence that he ever shot at anyone, participated in any attack, or even told someone how to do anything.

Ah my favorite pet! I once had a dog who would follow me everywhere and now I have you! How cute.

Yeah, there was no trial, evidence etc... for Osama bin Laden either. Oh how I weep for both for them...

What about your idiotic claim that some people think this was good because it wasn't Bush, and some think it was good because it was Obama?

Ahhh Little Puppy, You may be an angry little puppy but you are funny!
Okay that was idiotic! Hyperbole! Humor! Satire! Parody! Pairody! Gigularity!

So are you EVER in a good mood? Happy? How about just not hostile and pissy? Oh well, you're just you so I guess you can't help it. Well you're still funny and I appreciate the laughs you give me.:lol:
 

CT9

Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2011
Messages
489
Reaction score
42
Points
16
Lots of spirited debates going on about this.
Liberals claiming it is wrong to kill this guy because he's American.
Conservatives claiming it's wrong because Obama ordered it and they now have an ACLU alter-ego.
Liberals claiming it's okay because Bush isn't doing it.
Both sides citing the USC, UCMJ etc...


So okay, here's the thing.

This is about the fact that we now have an enemy without a politically defined boundary on a map somewhere. We didn't have that a couple hundred years ago unless you count indians and look what we did to them. So let's put it in a perspective that may offer some clarity.

Let's say there was a COUNTRY of AlQaedia that you could point to on a map. That country was a religious theocracy run by whackjobs who declared war on lots of countries, including the USA.
So if a US citizen moved there, became a citizen of AlQaedia, adopted their ways, joined their military, became a leading figure in that country's attacks against us and then was killed by a drone, what would people say? There would be no questioning the Constitutionality of it and his former status as a US citizen would not be a factor because he was now an AlQeadian. Enemy Combatant & Casualty of War, plain & simple.

So that's exactly what happened. Al Qaeda has a political structure & government, public relations, defined heirarchy, military etc... And they have declared war on us and killed US citizens.
The only difference is these particluar whackjobs don't have a country on a map somewhere. That is the only reason there is any argument over this.

You're belittling the arguments against it because you simply don't understand them. What you are defining as the problem is not the problem, and not what people don't like about it. I'm really tired of repeating myself and getting incoherent responses and insults so I'm sorry if it's brief however to sum up.

We are fighting a war on terror, an enemy that is not defined. Nor is a terrorist, how does one exactly qualify to be considered a terrorist? Nobody can give you one answer, their isn't one criteria... So now we are assassinating an American without due process simply because he is labeled a terrorist, it is a very dangerous precedent. I just would have preferred due process to dot all the i's and cross all the t's. So that in the future if this is abused, a person will have some recourse because the case was dismissed because he would not stand himself in the suit and the judge says he would be interfering with presidential power. I disagree, that's what the courts are their for and can I ask, who would show up to a trial in a nation who has them on a kill list. I doubt anything would happen but to also set the precedent that a third party cannot stand trial here is another dangerous thing. All I'm saying is if you are going to kill someone, it should be an open and shut case...
 

syrenn

Rookie
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
47,839
Reaction score
11,196
Points
0
Lots of spirited debates going on about this.
Liberals claiming it is wrong to kill this guy because he's American.
Conservatives claiming it's wrong because Obama ordered it and they now have an ACLU alter-ego.
Liberals claiming it's okay because Bush isn't doing it.
Both sides citing the USC, UCMJ etc...


So okay, here's the thing.

This is about the fact that we now have an enemy without a politically defined boundary on a map somewhere. We didn't have that a couple hundred years ago unless you count indians and look what we did to them. So let's put it in a perspective that may offer some clarity.

Let's say there was a COUNTRY of AlQaedia that you could point to on a map. That country was a religious theocracy run by whackjobs who declared war on lots of countries, including the USA.
So if a US citizen moved there, became a citizen of AlQaedia, adopted their ways, joined their military, became a leading figure in that country's attacks against us and then was killed by a drone, what would people say? There would be no questioning the Constitutionality of it and his former status as a US citizen would not be a factor because he was now an AlQeadian. Enemy Combatant & Casualty of War, plain & simple.

So that's exactly what happened. Al Qaeda has a political structure & government, public relations, defined heirarchy, military etc... And they have declared war on us and killed US citizens.
The only difference is these particluar whackjobs don't have a country on a map somewhere. That is the only reason there is any argument over this.



More independent logic?
 

Wiseacre

Retired USAF Chief
Joined
Apr 8, 2011
Messages
6,025
Reaction score
1,297
Points
48
Location
San Antonio, TX
It's a slippery slope isn't it, to kill someone who might be plotting mass violence on Americans anywhere in the world. It should give us pause to consider the ramifications of allowing our gov't to determine who lives and dies without the benefit of a trial. Where does that trail lead us?

I'm all for preventing mass casualties, but I don't know of alternatives to prevent atrocities. If capture and trial are really not feasible, should we not have at least covert congressional approval before somebody is targeted? Seems to me that the individual's citizenship takes a back seat to the loss of life that inactivity could result in, American citizenship shouldn't be used as a defense against detection and elimination of a serious terrorist threat.

How do we balance individual rights and freedoms against lives lost? It may well be that Iran develops nuclear weapons int he next few years, and they or the North Koreans or somebody else sells them to some nutjob group of fanatics. What if a hundreds of thouands of lives are at stake, is it better to be safe than sorry? Does it really matter what nationality those nutjobs are?
 
Last edited:

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
72,722
Reaction score
40,448
Points
2,615
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
Lots of spirited debates going on about this.
Liberals claiming it is wrong to kill this guy because he's American.
Conservatives claiming it's wrong because Obama ordered it and they now have an ACLU alter-ego.
Liberals claiming it's okay because Bush isn't doing it.
Both sides citing the USC, UCMJ etc...


So okay, here's the thing.

This is about the fact that we now have an enemy without a politically defined boundary on a map somewhere. We didn't have that a couple hundred years ago unless you count indians and look what we did to them. So let's put it in a perspective that may offer some clarity.

Let's say there was a COUNTRY of AlQaedia that you could point to on a map. That country was a religious theocracy run by whackjobs who declared war on lots of countries, including the USA.
So if a US citizen moved there, became a citizen of AlQaedia, adopted their ways, joined their military, became a leading figure in that country's attacks against us and then was killed by a drone, what would people say? There would be no questioning the Constitutionality of it and his former status as a US citizen would not be a factor because he was now an AlQeadian. Enemy Combatant & Casualty of War, plain & simple.

So that's exactly what happened. Al Qaeda has a political structure & government, public relations, defined heirarchy, military etc... And they have declared war on us and killed US citizens.
The only difference is these particluar whackjobs don't have a country on a map somewhere. That is the only reason there is any argument over this.



More independent logic?
More loquacious, spurious and specious sophistry.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$260.01
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top