Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.


All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 170 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next   
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 2:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Posts: 6446
Location: downstairs
Estiveo wrote:
As far as i'm concerned, al Awlaki renounced his citizenship and the rights and protections that go with it the second he chose to make war on my country. Fuck him.


+1

_________________
I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it.--Voltaire


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 3:08 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 10:42 pm
Posts: 3369
Location: The 808
Occupation: World-class procrastinator and perpetual late-bloomer.
Adelante wrote:
Estiveo wrote:
As far as i'm concerned, al Awlaki renounced his citizenship and the rights and protections that go with it the second he chose to make war on my country. Fuck him.


+1


Who decides, how, and what if they're wrong.

(I don't think they were in this case, but the slope is steep and slippery.)

_________________
"If it was a legitimately stolen election, Romney's body would have had ways of shutting that down. Also, if a usurpation happens, even in that horrible situation of a stolen election, it was God's will." -A Legal Lohengrin


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 3:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 12:48 am
Posts: 4551
Occupation: Professional pain in the ass.
Estiveo wrote:
As far as i'm concerned, al Awlaki renounced his citizenship and the rights and protections that go with it the second he chose to make war on my country. Fuck him.



^^^ This, plus about a million.

_________________
Pity the poor Birthers, for they know not how to Think.

Turning the Scale.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 3:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:40 am
Posts: 5517
Occupation: retired
Mikedunford wrote:
I'm troubled by the idea that the President can unilaterally order the assassination of an American Citizen, even if that citizen is in a foreign country at the time of the assassination.

I'm troubled by the idea that someone who is actively participating in an organized effort to kill American citizens and attack American interests can effectively evade government actions to halt their efforts because of their birthplace.

I'm troubled by the idea that we can engage in over a decade of continuous combat operations on several different continents without actually being at war with anyone.

I'm troubled by the idea that an organization with hundreds or thousands of armed combatants attempting to attack American interests must be treated as anything but a belligerent power.

The whole thing sucks, and there seem to be no clean options available.


I find those things troubling as well. Something like this assassination should not be celebrated or gloated over. It's demanding we have a level of trust that the neo-cons destroyed. We have to depend on sources that we know have not been truthful in the past.

_________________
Mark Twain
Quote:
Research shows that 87.666 per cent of all statistics are made up.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 3:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 12:48 am
Posts: 4551
Occupation: Professional pain in the ass.
Nah. No slack to traitors who actively seek to kill Americans. I don't care if they kill 'em with a drone attack or someone in a trench coat putting a bullet in their skull.

_________________
Pity the poor Birthers, for they know not how to Think.

Turning the Scale.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 3:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Posts: 19935
Location: FEMA Camp 17 -- Malibu (Hey! You! Get off the lawn!)
Occupation: Schadenfreude artist.
Estiveo wrote:
As far as i'm concerned, al Awlaki renounced his citizenship and the rights and protections that go with it the second he chose to make war on my country. Fuck him.

FOAD actually.

_________________
When there are a finite number of ways to screw something up, Orly Taitz will find an infinite number of ways to do so. (The Sternsig Rule.)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 3:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:55 pm
Posts: 2357
I am of the unshakeable opinion that Anwar al-Awlaki received due process of the law.

=D>

_________________
"Let me tell you, I'm a really smart guy."

― Donald Trump


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 3:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Posts: 19935
Location: FEMA Camp 17 -- Malibu (Hey! You! Get off the lawn!)
Occupation: Schadenfreude artist.
He was certainly brought to justice. And since he believes in the afterlife and all that, he got what he wanted. It was just a little sooner than he wanted.

_________________
When there are a finite number of ways to screw something up, Orly Taitz will find an infinite number of ways to do so. (The Sternsig Rule.)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 4:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 1:22 pm
Posts: 9162
Location: Supreme Court of clerks
Occupation: Petite treason procurer
"For the record:"

1. If al Awlaki was not an American citizen (natural-born, even), it would have acceptable to kill him without due process.

2. If the GWOT was a conventional war, and al Awlaki was wearing an enemy uniform, it would have been acceptable to kill him without due process.

3. But because al Awlaki is an American citizen engaging in unconventional warfare against the United States, he is entitled to more due process that lawful combatants (of any nationality)?

Nb. AUMF, sec. 2(a):
Quote:
That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

_________________
Image Image Image Image Image

ASSUME ANYTHING WRITTEN HERE WILL END UP ON TAITZ'S SITE AND FACEBOOK. AND JEROME CORSI WILL POST SCREENSHOTS TO WND. AND WILL BE FILED BY A BIRTHER AS AN EXHIBIT IN FEDERAL COURT. NOW HAVE FUN!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 4:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:31 am
Posts: 2120
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Quote:
I'm troubled by the idea that the President can unilaterally order the assassination of an American Citizen, even if that citizen is in a foreign country at the time of the assassination.


I don't know why there is a tendency to make this more complicated than it is.

In the classic bank robbery hostage situation, the bank robber has two choices:

(a) turn himself in
(b) police snipers

It is not an element of Due Process to allow the ongoing commission of a crime by a suspect. If a suspect engaged in ongoing deadly crime does not turn himself in on notice that he is wanted and cannot be captured without substantial risk, that suspect often ends up getting shot to death.

If he wanted Due Process, he could have presented himself at the US consulate and be taken into custody.

_________________
"I believe that 90% of the things alleged in the complaint didn't happen. But that's not going to make following this lawsuit any less enjoyable." - Sterngard Friegen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 4:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:53 pm
Posts: 12874
Location: location, location
Occupation: Ruler of the Intarwebz
I'm with the fpoon guy and those who followed. (The rest of this post I initially wrote on another forum earlier today.)

I'm a believer in and a supporter of the Constitution. And in American citizenship. One reason I got sucked into the birther vortex was, the idiot birthers claimed that if President Obama was adopted in Indonesia by Lolo Soetoro, he lost his U.S. citizenship.

This, of course, is as stupid as claiming both your parents must be citizens of the U.S. on the day you're born for you to be a natural born citizen. The honest truth is, if President Obama's mom had remarried 10 times in 10 foreign countries and all 10 of his stepfathers had adopted him, he'd still be an American citizen UNLESS he reached the age of 18 and voluntarily renounced his citizenship.

You can do that. Renounce your American citizenship, that is.

Which, functionally, you could say that Awlaki and Samir Khan did. By engaging in terrorism against the U.S., they effectively renounced their U.S. citizenship, as we say in legalese, nunc pro tunc, ipso facto, and race itsa locator. :D


What they did is fundamentally inconsistent with American citizenship, and should be ruled in a court of law to have vitiated all their rights to Constitutional protection. I'm going to name it "constructive renunciation" of their American citizenship, and piss on their graves.

Fuck 'em if they can't take a joak. :-bd

But I wouldn't want any other president to have the power to do what my president did. So I'm still conflicted.

_________________
... then one day I found some birthers on my planet. Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 4:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 1:22 pm
Posts: 9162
Location: Supreme Court of clerks
Occupation: Petite treason procurer
Res Ipsa wrote:
It is not an element of Due Process to allow the ongoing commission of a crime by a suspect.

The argument made the ACLU (and others) concerns the imminence of the threat. That is, if no one is holding a gun to someone's head, there's no imminent threat to justify a killing away from a battlefield.

But that's a somewhat simplistic notion of terrorism. Plans are put often put into motion days or weeks (or more) before the threat materializes.

_________________
Image Image Image Image Image

ASSUME ANYTHING WRITTEN HERE WILL END UP ON TAITZ'S SITE AND FACEBOOK. AND JEROME CORSI WILL POST SCREENSHOTS TO WND. AND WILL BE FILED BY A BIRTHER AS AN EXHIBIT IN FEDERAL COURT. NOW HAVE FUN!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 4:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:53 pm
Posts: 12874
Location: location, location
Occupation: Ruler of the Intarwebz
Oh, and I listened to Rush Limpballs today to hear him yappin' about Awlaki. I remember the week Osama was taken out by President Barack BadAss. Rush spent the entire week flailing and flopping, trying desperately to find a way to deprive Obama of the credit. Did you know we invaded a friendly country and brutally murdered an unarmed civilian?

For shame! For shame! [-X

But today's show was a double bonus.

First, Rush correctly pointed out, as JT8 and others have pointed out, that the ACLU is not happy with the extrajudicial assassination of an American citizen without due process of law.

But Rush couldn't figure out what to say about that. Can you imagine? You're Rush Limpballs, and you're supposed to take sides between the ACLU and President Obama? Whose side do you pick? :-k

It's a giant Image


Second, for some reason Rush went birfer today. He read an editorial by Judy McLoed, the editor of CanadaFreePress. There was Rush on the radio, calling the president "Barry Soetoro" and saying he didn't show any "identity documents" before being elected. It was a birfer's wet dream.


_________________
... then one day I found some birthers on my planet. Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 4:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:06 am
Posts: 4915
Location: Glocca Morra
Hmmm, where were the "bleeding heart conservatives" yelling due process when the Feds killed Baby Face Nelson in ...

The Battle of Barrington Illinois? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_Face_ ... Barrington

ironic, eh.

_________________
"What's it like being an atheist? It's like being the only sober person in a car full of drunks, and they refuse to let you drive." Thomas Jefferson

Birtherism is so ridiculous that I no longer feel obligated to treat proponents w/slightest degree of respect or civility


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 5:05 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 10:42 pm
Posts: 3369
Location: The 808
Occupation: World-class procrastinator and perpetual late-bloomer.
bob wrote:
"For the record:"

1. If al Awlaki was not an American citizen (natural-born, even), it would have acceptable to kill him without due process.

2. If the GWOT was a conventional war, and al Awlaki was wearing an enemy uniform, it would have been acceptable to kill him without due process.

3. But because al Awlaki is an American citizen engaging in unconventional warfare against the United States, he is entitled to more due process that lawful combatants (of any nationality)?

Nb. AUMF, sec. 2(a):
Quote:
That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.


For the record -

I'm glad the bastard's dead. I think that killing him was absolutely the right choice. I'm troubled by the situation as a whole, not by this particular action.

It seems very clear that the conflict of the last decade is a new kind of war, and that the laws and traditions that we've abided by in past conflicts aren't elastic enough to cover everything involved in the present situation. We are dealing with a loosely organized, relatively vague entity that is not tethered to any particular location. It's unconstrained by national borders. It does not, for the most part, fight conventional battles. It's members are not uniformed. It's leadership is difficult to determine. It has little fixed infrastructure. Its members are frequently found in civilian communities, but those communities may not always be willing hosts. They have little or no desire to hold ground.

The enemy that we are fighting has no intention of restricting its actions to fit within the bounds of any accepted international law, the laws of war, or any law other than their own unilateral declarations.

The laws and traditions that are supposed to govern how we wage war were established at a time when wars were fought by nations, by soldiers on battlefields who were attempting to take physical territory away from their enemy. They don't fit the current conflict, and strictly abiding by them is a really stupid idea - I get that, I really do.

What I don't like - what makes me really, really uncomfortable - is that we appear to have decided to make up the new rules as we go along. I probably have an unrealistically naive view of history, but it feels like the legal/philosophical issues involved would have received more serious attention from political figures in the past. For that matter, it feels (at least to me) like it should receive more attention from them now.

I'm probably articulating all of this really poorly, but it just seems like this whole thing is challenging our basic commitment to the rule of law, or maybe like it should be forcing us to think about what the rule of law actually means. Terrorists will never sit down at a conference table in Geneva and work out a set of rules to govern their conflicts with nations, but does that mean that nations shouldn't sit down on their own and work out a new set of rules to govern dealing with international terrorists? Yes, setting up rules will restrict our own conduct. Yes, it will make things easier in some ways for the terrorists. But isn't a willingness to form and abide by social compacts one of the things that is supposed to be setting us apart?

Yeah, this is idealistic, I know. But it still bugs me some.

_________________
"If it was a legitimately stolen election, Romney's body would have had ways of shutting that down. Also, if a usurpation happens, even in that horrible situation of a stolen election, it was God's will." -A Legal Lohengrin


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 5:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Posts: 19935
Location: FEMA Camp 17 -- Malibu (Hey! You! Get off the lawn!)
Occupation: Schadenfreude artist.
I'm with Res Ipsa.

Because res ipsa loquitur. If this terrorist didn't want to be in the crosshairs all he had to do was turn himself in. If any of you bleeding hearts didn't like this result, all you had to do was fly to this terrorist's HQs and help bring him back to the U.S.

Oh, what? No volunteers?

Carry on.

_________________
When there are a finite number of ways to screw something up, Orly Taitz will find an infinite number of ways to do so. (The Sternsig Rule.)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 5:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 1:41 pm
Posts: 701
Location: Baghdad by the Bay (tm Herb Caen)
Mikedunford wrote:

For the record -

I'm glad the bastard's dead. I think that killing him was absolutely the right choice. I'm troubled by the situation as a whole, not by this particular action.

<snippage>


A big "me too" to Mike's thoughtful post. The man was a terrorist and a traitor to his country and his fate couldn't have happened to a nicer guy. But, as many far smarter and better informed than I have pointed out, this is a new kind of war and I think a lot of people in authority really ARE making it up as they go along. It's not helped by the fact that there are so many gray areas here and we're stuck with politicians who refuse to think beyond black-and-white. Is every Al Qaeda footman and lackey evil and deserving of death, or are are large percentage going along with their leaders' twisted ideology in order to provide for their families since it's the best paying job they'd be able to get? Are they like the Nazi and Fascist soldiers who were allowed to return to what was left of their lives at the end of WWII or do they need to be exterminated to the last man? Why is it A-OK for the US to kill a Saudi Arabian man living in a country with which we're not at war, but somehow reprehensible to kill an American living in yet another country with which we're not at war?

I don't have answers, and I don't think a lot of very intelligent people in the highest level of our government do, either. And that makes me very nervous.

_________________
“I have seen purer liquors, better segars, finer tobacco, truer guns and pistols, larger dirk and Bowie knives, and prettier courtesans here in San Francisco than in any other place I have ever visited, and it is my un-biased opinion that California can and does furnish the best bad things that are obtainable in America." Hinton R. Helper -1855


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 5:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 1:22 pm
Posts: 9162
Location: Supreme Court of clerks
Occupation: Petite treason procurer
FWIW, the process of being approved for targeted killing isn't (as far as we know) totally capricious and arbitrary. The NSC is constantly reviewing data and adding/removing names as needed.

So, is the process sufficiently due? (Is it enough "process"?)

And: Transparency. It involves, fundamentally, taking the executive branch at its word.

_________________
Image Image Image Image Image

ASSUME ANYTHING WRITTEN HERE WILL END UP ON TAITZ'S SITE AND FACEBOOK. AND JEROME CORSI WILL POST SCREENSHOTS TO WND. AND WILL BE FILED BY A BIRTHER AS AN EXHIBIT IN FEDERAL COURT. NOW HAVE FUN!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 6:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:53 pm
Posts: 12874
Location: location, location
Occupation: Ruler of the Intarwebz
Preface: I'm glad they're dead. I'm praising the president for what he did.

However ...

I spent the entire Bush administration warning conservatives that his brazen arrogation of all possible power to the presidency -- the way he told the courts again and again that in time of war they had no power to second-guess his blatantly unconstitutional decisions -- would not be so attractive to them (the conservatives) when the next president came along and held that same degree of power. That was one reason I didn't want Hillary. I felt she would love to have that degree of power, and wouldn't roll back to a position of equilibrium among the three brunches of government.

President Obama hasn't rolled back to a position of equilibrium, either. Nevertheless, I trust President Obama. I trust his judgment. I think he did the right thing for the right reasons. I support his decisions. I just hope we never get a president with poor judgment, a president with the power to determine that an American citizen is an "enemy combatant" without anyone to second-guess that decision, a president who abuses that power. Down that road lies tyranny.

I'm glad these two scumbags are dead. I'm praising the president for what he did. But a tiny voice in my head is wondering about the precedent, and about future presidents, and about what might go wrong someday.

_________________
... then one day I found some birthers on my planet. Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 6:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:19 am
Posts: 3022
Occupation: Bringing Sexy Back
Taverl wrote:
Mikedunford wrote:

For the record -

I'm glad the bastard's dead. I think that killing him was absolutely the right choice. I'm troubled by the situation as a whole, not by this particular action.

<snippage>


A big "me too" to Mike's thoughtful post. The man was a terrorist and a traitor to his country and his fate couldn't have happened to a nicer guy. But, as many far smarter and better informed than I have pointed out, this is a new kind of war and I think a lot of people in authority really ARE making it up as they go along. It's not helped by the fact that there are so many gray areas here and we're stuck with politicians who refuse to think beyond black-and-white. Is every Al Qaeda footman and lackey evil and deserving of death, or are are large percentage going along with their leaders' twisted ideology in order to provide for their families since it's the best paying job they'd be able to get? Are they like the Nazi and Fascist soldiers who were allowed to return to what was left of their lives at the end of WWII or do they need to be exterminated to the last man? Why is it A-OK for the US to kill a Saudi Arabian man living in a country with which we're not at war, but somehow reprehensible to kill an American living in yet another country with which we're not at war?

I don't have answers, and I don't think a lot of very intelligent people in the highest level of our government do, either. And that makes me very nervous.


This. And what Foogie said, too.

_________________
"Orly has progressed beyond running with scissors. She's taken a 30-minute kerosene bath, and is now juggling lit sparklers." -Mike Dunford

"Holy shit. She's insane. She's bonkers. She's certifiable. She's copulating with a Planters can. She's so fucking batshit that it's going to take at least five generations of bats to replenish global stocks." -Mike Dunford


My hobby: playing conspiracy theories off against each other


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 6:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm
Posts: 13592
Location: New England
Occupation: Professor of Sociology
Taverl wrote:
...
I don't have answers, and I don't think a lot of very intelligent people in the highest level of our government do, either. And that makes me very nervous.

That might be exactly where the people at the highest level of our government ought to be -- uncertain. Dick Cheney never had or has any uncertainty; he knew the truth at all times and is eager to tell us that he did. So did and does Rumsfeld. I am beginning to think that George W. Bush might have figured out that his neo-conservative handlers were doing him and the nation harm.

I want President Obama, the Directors of National Intelligence, CIA, FBI, and NSA, and the Secretaries of State and Defense constantly challenging each other about this kind of decision. I want several somebodies to be worrying about what we are calling due process (although that concept applies to criminal law, not to war). I want them all to be finally satisfied that they have all the goods on the right person. Then I want them to act swiftly and deadly, avoiding as much unwanted killing as is possible.

The fog of this war is almost impenetrable. I want them all to recognize that and think hard about the act of killing an American citizen. And I do not want them to celebrate.

_________________
"Someone should tell Mrs. Reagan that young people -- not even young people on drugs -- are not the ones responsible for the major problems besetting the world!" John Irving, A Prayer for Owen Meany: A Novel, p. 370.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 8:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Posts: 19935
Location: FEMA Camp 17 -- Malibu (Hey! You! Get off the lawn!)
Occupation: Schadenfreude artist.
Awlaki was killed on the battlefield of his own selection.

His fault.

He should have surrendered.

_________________
When there are a finite number of ways to screw something up, Orly Taitz will find an infinite number of ways to do so. (The Sternsig Rule.)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 8:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm
Posts: 10650
Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Awlaki was killed on the battlefield of his own selection.

His fault.

He should have surrendered.


Indeed. And I am sure that the great constitutional issues raised by some also passed through the thoughts of President Obama. Ultimately, however, I think he'd rather take that risk than have the blood of thousands more innocent Americans on his hands. I vividly remember the President at the memoral service for the Ft. Hood victims of Hassan. I'm sure he remembered that, too.

_________________
"All this talk about blowjobs makes me want to SUE SOMEBODY"-- Sterngard Friegen (quoting Thomas Jefferson)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 8:46 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 10:42 pm
Posts: 3369
Location: The 808
Occupation: World-class procrastinator and perpetual late-bloomer.
Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Awlaki was killed on the battlefield of his own selection.

His fault.

He should have surrendered.


Agreed.

Agreed.

And Agreed.

But I'm still uncomfortable about how we've chosen to go about dealing with the overall situation.

_________________
"If it was a legitimately stolen election, Romney's body would have had ways of shutting that down. Also, if a usurpation happens, even in that horrible situation of a stolen election, it was God's will." -A Legal Lohengrin


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 8:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Posts: 19935
Location: FEMA Camp 17 -- Malibu (Hey! You! Get off the lawn!)
Occupation: Schadenfreude artist.
Mikedunford wrote:
Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Awlaki was killed on the battlefield of his own selection.

His fault.

He should have surrendered.


Agreed.

Agreed.

And Agreed.

But I'm still uncomfortable about how we've chosen to go about dealing with the overall situation.

MikeDunford - We kill terrorists who are trying to kill us. It's really very easy.

In addition to choosing his battlefield, Awlaki also chose what he was and chose to crow about it and shove it in our faces at every opportunity.

I have no qualms.

_________________
When there are a finite number of ways to screw something up, Orly Taitz will find an infinite number of ways to do so. (The Sternsig Rule.)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 170 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next   

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
View new posts | View active topics



Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group