or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Shocker! I support Obama on killing US citizens
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Shocker! I support Obama on killing US citizens

post #1 of 20
Thread Starter 
Those who follow the news will know that the American born Al-Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki was recently taken out in Yemen. Good riddance to that scumbag! Reports are that one other American was also killed. Good riddance to that scumbag also! I also piss on their graves, if anybody bothered to bury them, if there was even anything left to bury of their bodies.

Some people from both the left and the right have been criticizing Obama for authorizing a strike on a US citizen. Well, shockingly, I am going to side with Obama in this instance. These so-called Americans were Al-Qaeda members and sworn enemies at war with the US and it's citizens. So, I don't care who's criticizing Obama over this, from the left or the right. They're both wrong, Obama is right.

As far as I'm concerned, anybody who is a part of Al-Qaeda should be hunted down and killed. Somebody who joins Al-Qaeda effectively gives up their rights as an American citizen, and they should only expect one thing, and that is death. At least these scumbags who got killed didn't get waterboarded! That would have been a real tragedy! LOL

So today, I give Obama and the brave men and women serving in the military props for doing the right thing and eliminating these scumbags. Good job, and I mean it!

Tomorrow, I'll probably bash Obama on a different topic, but that's a different story.
post #2 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

Those who follow the news will know that the American born Al-Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki was recently taken out in Yemen. Good riddance to that scumbag! Reports are that one other American was also killed. Good riddance to that scumbag also! I also piss on their graves, if anybody bothered to bury them, if there was even anything left to bury of their bodies.

Some people from both the left and the right have been criticizing Obama for authorizing a strike on a US citizen. Well, shockingly, I am going to side with Obama in this instance. These so-called Americans were Al-Qaeda members and sworn enemies at war with the US and it's citizens. So, I don't care who's criticizing Obama over this, from the left or the right. They're both wrong, Obama is right.

As far as I'm concerned, anybody who is a part of Al-Qaeda should be hunted down and killed. Somebody who joins Al-Qaeda effectively gives up their rights as an American citizen, and they should only expect one thing, and that is death. At least these scumbags who got killed didn't get waterboarded! That would have been a real tragedy! LOL

So today, I give Obama and the brave men and women serving in the military props for doing the right thing and eliminating these scumbags. Good job, and I mean it!

Tomorrow, I'll probably bash Obama on a different topic, but that's a different story.

Shocker #2, I don't agree with you on your base premise. You're taking this way too lightly, and the lack of concern in your post is really off-putting. When an American citizen dies, no matter the reason, it is not time to LOL and have big smileys.

I am not criticizing anyone at this time for the death as I don't have the facts, however I am not blindly in support of this action. It is concerning to me. And if I were to find myself in support of it, I would still not be celebrating like this. It is a somber moment, and not one that needs to be taken lightly. You (Or at least I) do not want it to be easy or normal to have the president (any president) order the targeted killing of American citizens.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #3 of 20
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Shocker #2, I don't agree with you on your base premise. You're taking this way too lightly, and the lack of concern in your post is really off-putting. When an American citizen dies, no matter the reason, it is not time to LOL and have big smileys.

I am not criticizing anyone at this time for the death as I don't have the facts, however I am not blindly in support of this action. It is concerning to me. And if I were to find myself in support of it, I would still not be celebrating like this. It is a somber moment, and not one that needs to be taken lightly. You (Or at least I) do not want it to be easy or normal to have the president (any president) order the targeted killing of American citizens.

A somber moment? I couldn't disagree with you more, but that's ok, we can agree to disagree on that point. I have no concern at all for treasonous American Al-Qaeda members who are waging war against the US. I don't really differentiate between American Al-Qaeda and foreign Al-Qaeda, as they both are mortal enemies who need to be taken out.

From what I've read, the terrorists were taken out in a drone strike. The terrorists were probably thinking that they were eventually going to end up in "paradise" one day, but along came a wonderful American made Hellfire missile and ruined their silly plans.

And these sort of targeted killings aren't exactly a common occurrence, so I don't see any reason for concern at all. We are at war after all, and I support the killing of Al-Qaeda goons, where ever they are found, American or not.
post #4 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

A somber moment? I couldn't disagree with you more, but that's ok, we can agree to disagree on that point. I have no concern at all for treasonous American Al-Qaeda members who are waging war against the US. I don't really differentiate between American Al-Qaeda and foreign Al-Qaeda, as they both are mortal enemies who need to be taken out.

From what I've read, the terrorists were taken out in a drone strike. The terrorists were probably thinking that they were eventually going to end up in "paradise" one day, but along came a wonderful American made Hellfire missile and ruined their silly plans.

And these sort of targeted killings aren't exactly a common occurrence, so I don't see any reason for concern at all. We are at war after all, and I support the killing of Al-Qaeda goons, where ever they are found, American or not.

So long as we understand one another. We agree to disagree on this. I think you can feel a certain satisfaction that the person will no longer harm others and that justice may have been done. However to celebrate their death like this just does not set right with me.

As far as targeted killings not being a common occurrence, I think it should remain that way. You stated in you previous post and in this one that you are fine with it if the person is of a certain group. I disagree, there needs to be a clear reason why other than just affiliation.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #5 of 20
Where are the howles from the left? Code Pink? How 'bout a die-in?
post #6 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

Where are the howles from the left? Code Pink? How 'bout a die-in?

But Obama's heart is in the right place, so it doesn't matter.

I support the action. In my judgement he became a military target after joining AQ. My belief stands in stark contrast to Ron Paul, who probably ended his Presidential campaign after saying the guy was assassinated.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #7 of 20
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

My belief stands in stark contrast to Ron Paul, who probably ended his Presidential campaign after saying the guy was assassinated.

I'm not even sure why he bothers to run as a Republican. He has no shot with Republicans. I suppose that he's a Libertarian, but his foreign policy is even worse and more naive than Obama's, and that's saying a hell of a lot. Ron Paul also seems to attract a lot of the conspiracy theory lunatics and 9/11 truther morons for some reason.

If Ron Paul had been President, then he would never have given the order to have this Al-Qaeda leader eliminated. His foreign policy sounds almost exactly like the 'blame America first' lunatic fringe on the far left. Would Ron Paul have even ordered Bin Laden to be taken out? Somehow I doubt that.

edit - Haha, I just found out the answer to that last question.Hilarious.


Ron Paul: I Would Not Have Ordered Bin Laden Raid


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...#ixzz1ZUhQ6rlu
post #8 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

Those who follow the news will know that the American born Al-Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki was recently taken out in Yemen. Good riddance to that scumbag! Reports are that one other American was also killed. Good riddance to that scumbag also! I also piss on their graves, if anybody bothered to bury them, if there was even anything left to bury of their bodies.

Some people from both the left and the right have been criticizing Obama for authorizing a strike on a US citizen. Well, shockingly, I am going to side with Obama in this instance. These so-called Americans were Al-Qaeda members and sworn enemies at war with the US and it's citizens. So, I don't care who's criticizing Obama over this, from the left or the right. They're both wrong, Obama is right.

As far as I'm concerned, anybody who is a part of Al-Qaeda should be hunted down and killed. Somebody who joins Al-Qaeda effectively gives up their rights as an American citizen, and they should only expect one thing, and that is death. At least these scumbags who got killed didn't get waterboarded! That would have been a real tragedy! LOL

So today, I give Obama and the brave men and women serving in the military props for doing the right thing and eliminating these scumbags. Good job, and I mean it!

Tomorrow, I'll probably bash Obama on a different topic, but that's a different story.

I am with you on this 100%.This is a joke that the these fanatics that were killed should be protected by due process of the law. They deserved to die and GOD BLESS the soldiers that killed them.
post #9 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

Those who follow the news will know that the American born Al-Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki was recently taken out in Yemen. Good riddance to that scumbag! Reports are that one other American was also killed. Good riddance to that scumbag also! I also piss on their graves, if anybody bothered to bury them, if there was even anything left to bury of their bodies.

Some people from both the left and the right have been criticizing Obama for authorizing a strike on a US citizen. Well, shockingly, I am going to side with Obama in this instance. These so-called Americans were Al-Qaeda members and sworn enemies at war with the US and it's citizens. So, I don't care who's criticizing Obama over this, from the left or the right. They're both wrong, Obama is right.

As far as I'm concerned, anybody who is a part of Al-Qaeda should be hunted down and killed. Somebody who joins Al-Qaeda effectively gives up their rights as an American citizen, and they should only expect one thing, and that is death. At least these scumbags who got killed didn't get waterboarded! That would have been a real tragedy! LOL



So today, I give Obama and the brave men and women serving in the military props for doing the right thing and eliminating these scumbags. Good job, and I mean it!

Tomorrow, I'll probably bash Obama on a different topic, but that's a different story.

Would you have been supportive of the US if they captured and tortured him to death?
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #10 of 20
Anwar al Awliki was murdered without a trial to establish either his guilt or innocence.

What terrorists do, is arbitrarily kill people. Obama has, by authorizing arbitrary murder without trial, lowered the executive branch to the same status as any lowball terrorist gang. Obama is now just a common thug, taking political advantage by massaging Americans' misperceptions.

This also sets the most dangerous precedent: Anyone, at the pleasure of the State Department or Executive branch for example, can be designated a "terrorist" without any form of proof or justification, and like al Awliki, can be summarily executed (read murdered in cold blood) without raising as much as an eyebrow. If you question, you will be name-called as unpatriotic... that is the common method of all rogue governments and their lackeys.

If the subject's name happens to be Arabic... it's so easy. In the minds of so many mainstream Americans, someone with a name like that is almost undoubtedly a terrorist.

That is what we have been very effectively programmed and conditioned to think... and the original poster of this thread has eagerly swallowed the conspiracy theories and koolaid.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #11 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Anwar al Awliki was murdered without a trial to establish either his guilt or innocence.

What terrorists do, is arbitrarily kill people. Obama has, by authorizing arbitrary murder without trial, lowered the executive branch to the same status as any lowball terrorist gang. Obama is now just a common thug, taking political advantage by massaging Americans' misperceptions.

This also sets the most dangerous precedent: Anyone, at the pleasure of the State Department or Executive branch for example, can be designated a "terrorist" without any form of proof or justification, and like al Awliki, can be summarily executed (read murdered in cold blood) without raising as much as an eyebrow. If you question, you will be name-called as unpatriotic... that is the common method of all rogue governments and their lackeys.

If the subject's name happens to be Arabic... it's so easy. In the minds of so many mainstream Americans, someone with a name like that is almost undoubtedly a terrorist.

That is what we have been very effectively programmed and conditioned to think... and the original poster of this thread has eagerly swallowed the conspiracy theories and koolaid.

I don't agree that Obama is a common thug, but I think the point you made here is close to how I feel about this situation. We don't see eye to eye often, but in this case we are almost in total agreement.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #12 of 20
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Anwar al Awliki was murdered without a trial to establish either his guilt or innocence.

Yes, he was eliminated without a trial. I believe that no trail was necessary, as it wasn't possible and his guilt was already established. Awliki was the terrorist who appeared in many Al-Qaeda propaganda videos, the burden of proof has been met and it was correct to take him out. I also believe that different rules apply in war situations. War is about killing the enemy. I don't believe that wars should be fought in court. I am in favor of killing people, as that is the most effective and logical way to fight and win wars.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

This also sets the most dangerous precedent: Anyone, at the pleasure of the State Department or Executive branch for example, can be designated a "terrorist" without any form of proof or justification, and like al Awliki, can be summarily executed (read murdered in cold blood) without raising as much as an eyebrow. If you question, you will be name-called as unpatriotic... that is the common method of all rogue governments and their lackeys.

I would disagree that 'anyone' can be taken out at the pleasure of the State Department or Executive branch. If somebody is a proven Al-Qaeda leader, then yeah, there is a certain chance that they will be taken out by a drone strike or other means. There is no doubt about the terrorists guilt in this instance. I believe that anybody making a claim that any random American can be taken out by the government is being extremely paranoid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

If the subject's name happens to be Arabic... it's so easy. In the minds of so many mainstream Americans, someone with a name like that is almost undoubtedly a terrorist.

I would disagree with that too. I don't think that it matters if the guy's name was 'Mickey Mouse'. If somebody advertises themselves as part of Al-Qaeda, and they are waging war against the US, then they should be taken out by any means necessary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

That is what we have been very effectively programmed and conditioned to think... and the original poster of this thread has eagerly swallowed the conspiracy theories and koolaid.

There are no conspiracy theories or koolaid to be swallowed here. An Al-Qaeda leader was taken out, somebody who was 100% guilty and they were a traitor who was waging war against the US and now they are dead.
post #13 of 20
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Would you have been supportive of the US if they captured and tortured him to death?

Why would I be supportive of that? I don't support torturing people to death for no good reason. That sounds like a waste of time.

I do however support 'enhanced interrogations' on certain terrorists.
post #14 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Would you have been supportive of the US if they captured and tortured him to death?

If the evidence was clear that this guy was Al Qaeda's Osama replacement, then I honestly support a clean kill. Capture and torture, no, because that's a violation of war conduct (as I see it).

If the kill was clean, as it supposedly was, that's the best resolution I see to this situation.
post #15 of 20
I understand what you're saying here. I see the concern. I hope Anwar's killing would really be the exception rather than the rule going forward. I feel the conflict.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Anwar al Awliki was murdered without a trial to establish either his guilt or innocence.

What terrorists do, is arbitrarily kill people. Obama has, by authorizing arbitrary murder without trial, lowered the executive branch to the same status as any lowball terrorist gang. Obama is now just a common thug, taking political advantage by massaging Americans' misperceptions.

This also sets the most dangerous precedent: Anyone, at the pleasure of the State Department or Executive branch for example, can be designated a "terrorist" without any form of proof or justification, and like al Awliki, can be summarily executed (read murdered in cold blood) without raising as much as an eyebrow. If you question, you will be name-called as unpatriotic... that is the common method of all rogue governments and their lackeys.

If the subject's name happens to be Arabic... it's so easy. In the minds of so many mainstream Americans, someone with a name like that is almost undoubtedly a terrorist.

That is what we have been very effectively programmed and conditioned to think... and the original poster of this thread has eagerly swallowed the conspiracy theories and koolaid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

I don't agree that Obama is a common thug, but I think the point you made here is close to how I feel about this situation. We don't see eye to eye often, but in this case we are almost in total agreement.
post #16 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

Yes, he was eliminated without a trial. I believe that no trail was necessary, as it wasn't possible and his guilt was already established.

By whom? Can you prove that Awliki has murdered people? What crimes had Awliki committed specifically against the United States? Guilt, in a civilized society, is established via trial. For "designated enemy combatants", military tribunals have been the practice for the last 10 years. Are these kangaroo courts with preordained verdicts not quite good enough for you? Are you quoting 2nd hand sources, self appointed "experts" in the field of foreign intelligence, and a buttload of baseless propaganda? US Central Intelligence doesn't exactly have the greatest record of justice (!!), and the last two administrations have lied about almost everything....

Quote:
Awliki was the terrorist who appeared in many Al-Qaeda propaganda videos,

And so did "Osama bin Laden". And every single one of those videos were proven fakes. Appearing in a video is not a crime, just for your information.

Quote:
the burden of proof has been met and it was correct to take him out.

Proof of guilt is what is established in a *trial*.

Quote:
I also believe that different rules apply in war situations.

So, if the US is at war with this particular group of people, then not only do we have the right to take them out, but they have the equal right to take us out too. That is what war is all about....

Quote:
War is about killing the enemy.

See above. If they regard the US as the enemy, then you are correct.

Quote:
I don't believe that wars should be fought in court. I am in favor of killing people, as that is the most effective and logical way to fight and win wars.

And it is likely that said sentiment is echoed within the enemy camp...

Quote:
I would disagree that 'anyone' can be taken out at the pleasure of the State Department or Executive branch.

Of course they can...and it has happened on many occasions in the past.

Quote:
If somebody is a proven Al-Qaeda leader, then yeah, there is a certain chance that they will be taken out by a drone strike or other means.

If someone is a bona fide (al Qaeda) leader, then the prudent thing to do, ie what any intelligence agency worth their salt should be doing, is using their training and paramilitary skills to get these bozos in custody. Then with the careful use of interrogation methods, treating the prisoner in a humanitarian way will yield a goldmine of information, if the party is guilty. That is how to bust terrorist groups and crime gangs...torture doesn't cut it, despite what psychopath in chief Dick Cheney claims. Wading in with drones and hellfire missiles may be satisfying to testosterone-addled macho boys, but it will destroy vital evidence and intel, and only seek to enrage the the locals, thus making a bad situation worse, and undoubtedly prolonging the conflict, while doubling as an effective recruitment campaign for more potential young militants. Also, to do the job properly, blaring news like " woohooo, we took out al Qaeda's #1" etc etc all over the media is counterproductive beyond all bounds.


Quote:
There is no doubt about the terrorists guilt in this instance.

So you keep saying.

Quote:
I believe that anybody making a claim that any random American can be taken out by the government is being extremely paranoid.

Well, Obama has set a precedent. What is to stop members of his administration authorizing the military to take out other people who have not been charged with a crime? How do you know that this is not already happening? Central Intelligence (and other state funded paramilitaries, or mercenaries) have been assassinating people for decades who have never been involved with terrorist activity... including elected heads of state. Learn some history.

Quote:
I would disagree with that too. I don't think that it matters if the guy's name was 'Mickey Mouse'. If somebody advertises themselves as part of Al-Qaeda, and they are waging war against the US, then they should be taken out by any means necessary.

Finally, perhaps you should do a little bit of research on how al Qaeda started, what it morphed into, and what it is now. At present, anyone who is a member of any Islamic militant group can be designated a "member of al Qaeda", regardless of whether that group or person has any designs against the United States. In fact, the huge majority of mid-east based militants are far more concerned with local issues..... the US, as far as many of these people are concerned, may just as well be on Mars.

Incidentally, for your perusal:

The website that was quoted in the media reports, (but the URL no included) happens to be:

www.aljahad.com

If aljahad.com is "an al Qaeda website", in which real terrorists/terrorist sympathizers post messages on the web, where their IP addresses are very easily traceable by US and international authorities, then someone is either not doing their work, or this whole al Qaeda business is not what is being sold to us, or the act of harboring, aiding and abetting international terrorism is not taken as seriously by the authorities as the authorities would prefer us to believe.

The domain aljahad.com is hosted by www.Nocster.com, its IP Address: is: 184.82.129.150, and whoever updates the site... (a member of "al Qaeda"?!!), or at least someone "sympathetic to the cause", if this is genuine.. would obviously have to provide a billing address, and other traceable forms of ID.

Nocster is a private company HQ'd in Scranton, PA, Los Angeles CA and Manchester UK. www.aljahad.com was last updated September 30, 2011. Have any Nocster.net corporate officials been questioned yet over hosting a website which "is affiliated with" al Qaeda:"? Or do you feel that this "harboring of terrorists" part of al Qaeda's media campaign should not be investigated?

As of one minute ago, servers hosting this website are still up and running. A US based corporation is still getting away with aiding and abetting terrorism. A couple of drone strikes would take care of that little problem?
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #17 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Apple

[

If Ron Paul had been President, then he would never have given the order to have this Al-Qaeda leader eliminated. His foreign policy sounds almost exactly like the 'blame America first' lunatic fringe on the far left. Would Ron Paul have even ordered Bin Laden to be taken out? Somehow I doubt that.

edit - Haha, I just found out the answer to that last question.Hilarious.


Ron Paul: I Would Not Have Ordered Bin Laden Raid


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...#ixzz1ZUhQ6rlu

Perhaps the reason Ron Paul would not have ordered the raid is because RP knows something about the "killing of OBL" that we don't. No proof that it was definitively OBL who was killed in that raid has ever been offered either. Furthermore if *was* OBL who was killed in that botched raid, then a lot of potential intelligence was destroyed. Very good, Mr. Obama... you just trashed an extraordinary opportunity... that is, if Osama bin Laden was really a useful subject to question as regards the US Embassy bombings in Africa in the mid 1990s and the attack on the USS Cole.

As regards Sept. 11, 2001, neither the FBI had ever charged him in connection with that attack, nor was he indicted by the US Department of Justice for the same, both parties citing "no hard evidence linking "UBL" (sic) to the attacks of 9/11/2001. Considering that he was the designated terrorist superstar who was blamed for the attack while both of the WTC Twin Towers were still standing, we have a little cognitive dissonance going on here. Perhaps Ron Paul should explain to the US public his position... if the media would give him more than a few seconds of airtime, that is....
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #18 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Would you have been supportive of the US if they captured and tortured him to death?

This is a murderer who planned attacks against his own kind Americans!Let him rot in hell with his other conspirators that died. I am glad he was killed instead of tortured..
post #19 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Anwar al Awliki was murdered without a trial to establish either his guilt or innocence.

No. He was targeted by the military. By taking up arms against the US, he renounced his rights to a trial to establish guilt or innocence.

Quote:

What terrorists do, is arbitrarily kill people.

No, they deliberately kill innocent people to advance some agenda. There is nothing arbitrary about it.

Quote:
Obama has, by authorizing arbitrary murder without trial, lowered the executive branch to the same status as any lowball terrorist gang. Obama is now just a common thug, taking political advantage by massaging Americans' misperceptions.

That is absolutely fucking insane. Obama, like other Presidents, has used the nation's armed forces to seek and destroy terrorists. These are people that we know are terrorists, because they tell us so. His decisions are not "arbitrary" or random. We're not out there killing people we just don't like. And we don't seek to kill innocent people. We do everything we can to avoid doing so.

Quote:


This also sets the most dangerous precedent: Anyone, at the pleasure of the State Department or Executive branch for example, can be designated a "terrorist" without any form of proof or justification, and like al Awliki, can be summarily executed (read murdered in cold blood) without raising as much as an eyebrow. If you question, you will be name-called as unpatriotic... that is the common method of all rogue governments and their lackeys.

He was not "murdered in cold blood." He wasn't "murdered." He wasn't "assassinated." He was killed in a military operation. It's war, and it's what we need to do to protect ourselves. It is literally no different than firing on an enemy soldier. Secondly, how should we identify terrorists? Should we have a trial in absentia? Should we get a judicial order before launching an operation? Or, maybe we should just pretend "terrorists" don't exist.

Quote:

If the subject's name happens to be Arabic... it's so easy. In the minds of so many mainstream Americans, someone with a name like that is almost undoubtedly a terrorist.

Right, because we're all a bunch of ignorant, racist, bigoted morons. Except for you and people that happen to have a "D" behind their name.

Quote:

That is what we have been very effectively programmed and conditioned to think... and the original poster of this thread has eagerly swallowed the conspiracy theories and koolaid.

YOU are talking about swallowing conspiracy theories?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #20 of 20

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Shocker! I support Obama on killing US citizens