Anwar al-Awlaki killed in strike..only one left

[pocketfullofshells]

Anwar al-Awlaki, the Yemen Cleric , US Citizen, was killed in a air strike...one the key figures in al-Qaida Yemen, this was yet another major blow to the group.

http://news.yahoo.com/al-awlaki-voice-jihad-al-qaida-figure-113918616.html

that leaves only one important leader left in the group...so far as people talked about in the mainstream media often...( not meaning that there are not important members at large that are not as well known, but still important)

 

[Alias]

Bush was accused of creating terrorists for fighting terrorism. I wonder how many terrorists this will create?

 

[steveox]

Bush was accused of creating terrorists for fighting terrorism. I wonder how many terrorists this will create?

Good Question.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Bush was accused of creating terrorists for fighting terrorism. I wonder how many terrorists this will create?

keep fighting the straw man....

 

[Alias]

keep fighting the straw man....

Aren't you aware of the left accusing Bush of creating terrorists by having Gitmo (still open under Obama)and fighting against terrorism? Do you need a few helpful reminders? Just ask and I will help you out.

 

[dogtowner]

Wow great, down to one and we can shut it all down after tbat ! Surely no one will get kicked upstairs to carry on !

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Aren't you aware of the left accusing Bush of creating terrorists by having Gitmo (still open under Obama)and fighting against terrorism? Do you need a few helpful reminders? Just ask and I will help you out.

I guess this is hard for you, but poor tactics, immoral acts...with nothing positive to be gained from...is not the same as don't attack the terrorist. I know I know...this whole thing is hard for you to grasp...its not black and white and this hurts your head. But target attacks on Leadership...is not the same as Torture because some right wing nut jobs have a fetish for it, even though its shown to be ineffective and the only thing is does is help propaganda by the enemy. COIN is not about not taking any action that will anger some and make them change sides...its about making sure what you get is worth it.
Killing a top leader, and maybe a few freinds and family wanting to join and get revange...worth it..and unavoidable.

Torturing a Driver, or stacking low level people in a naked gay pile and taking pictures with them...gaining nothing...possibly even getting bad intel....against the possible gain of thousands for the enemy...Not worth it.

 

[Alias]

I guess this is hard for you, but poor tactics, immoral acts...with nothing positive to be gained from...is not the same as don't attack the terrorist. I know I know...this whole thing is hard for you to grasp...its not black and white and this hurts your head. But target attacks on Leadership...is not the same as Torture because some right wing nut jobs have a fetish for it, even though its shown to be ineffective and the only thing is does is help propaganda by the enemy. COIN is not about not taking any action that will anger some and make them change sides...its about making sure what you get is worth it.
Killing a top leader, and maybe a few freinds and family wanting to join and get revange...worth it..and unavoidable.

Torturing a Driver, or stacking low level people in a naked gay pile and taking pictures with them...gaining nothing...possibly even getting bad intel....against the possible gain of thousands for the enemy...Not worth it.

I'm not condoning either one. I don't know how you came to that conclusion. It's very convenient to surmise that the events under one President create terrorists and the policy under another President don't. I guess it matters which one YOU agree with. As for me, I like a little more consistency. If it's okay to kill terrorists and shoot them in the face and dumpt them at sea which is a great insult, but a few pictures and water up the nose is forbidden, then that doesn't make sense.

 

[BigRob]

I guess this is hard for you, but poor tactics, immoral acts...with nothing positive to be gained from...is not the same as don't attack the terrorist. I know I know...this whole thing is hard for you to grasp...its not black and white and this hurts your head. But target attacks on Leadership...is not the same as Torture because some right wing nut jobs have a fetish for it, even though its shown to be ineffective and the only thing is does is help propaganda by the enemy. COIN is not about not taking any action that will anger some and make them change sides...its about making sure what you get is worth it.
Killing a top leader, and maybe a few freinds and family wanting to join and get revange...worth it..and unavoidable.

Torturing a Driver, or stacking low level people in a naked gay pile and taking pictures with them...gaining nothing...possibly even getting bad intel....against the possible gain of thousands for the enemy...Not worth it.

While we are talking about "straw men", it has to be pointed out that nothing in your descriptions "torturing a driver, dtacking low people in a naked pile" etc NEVER took place at GITMO.

Futher, the twelve separate inquiries into the abuses alleged by critics and former detainees at Gitmo that found NO evidence of those abuses taking place.

At most, the debate seems to be that three, yes only three, people were waterboarded, and it was not the DOD that did it, and I am not even sure it was at GITMO.

In fact, Rumsfeld specifically banned Category III interrogations (which could include waterboarding).

So if the argument is really that waterboarding three people caused such an outrage in the Middle East as to make it GITMO some huge recruitment tool, I find that far-fetched.

 

[GenSeneca]

While we are talking about "straw men", it has to be pointed out that nothing in your descriptions "torturing a driver, dtacking low people in a naked pile" etc NEVER took place at GITMO.

You should probably also point out that Pocket draws no distinction between actual US policy and the unsanctioned illegal actions for which Pocket credits the Bush administration and all Republicans.

If anyone is offering a strawman, it's Pocket for suggesting that anyone in the DOD, or the Bush administration, or the general public for that matter, actually suggested that having men get into a naked pile is a reliable way to obtain intelligence or that such actions were sanctioned by the US government.

So if the argument is really that waterboarding three people caused such an outrage in the Middle East as to make it GITMO some huge recruitment tool, I find that far-fetched.

I'm sure Pocket will deny even the possibility that killing Bin-Laden and al-Awlaki, making them martyrs, would also serve as a recruitment tool for AQ.

 

[Openmind]

You should probably also point out that Pocket draws no distinction between actual US policy and the unsanctioned illegal actions for which Pocket credits the Bush administration and all Republicans.

If anyone is offering a strawman, it's Pocket for suggesting that anyone in the DOD, or the Bush administration, or the general public for that matter, actually suggested that having men get into a naked pile is a reliable way to obtain intelligence or that such actions were sanctioned by the US government.


I'm sure Pocket will deny even the possibility that killing Bin-Laden and al-Awlaki, making them martyrs, would also serve as a recruitment tool for AQ.

So funny! I knew that was coming . . .ANYTHING Obama does is criticize, one way or another!

Clinton was criticized for not pursuing Bin laden. . .and thus ALLOWING 9/11 to happen!

Bush was worthless in doing anything against the heads of terrorism. . .but was given a white wash for his inefficiency, although in the mean time, he ruined this country economically with his spending on the ridiculous Iraq war!

Obama was accused of "being soft" on terrorism, but he succeeded in getting both Bin Laden and Alwaki. . .so now, since the Reps can no longer use the "soft on terrorism" propaganda, they go to "evil killing of defentless people, one who was an American citizen!"

But. . . when ONE MAN who may have been WRONGLY sentenced to death for killing ONE person 17 years ago has a chance to avoid death penalty. . . the Reps are just too happy to put him to death anyway, no matter if 7 out of 9 of the witnesses recanted!

Come on guys, hypocrisy and hatred of Obama should really have some limit. . .either that or you have gone braindead following your "party line!"

And, by the way, I am not rejoicing at this killing. I believe that, no matter what, it is a shame to have to put ANY human being to death. I am just amazed at the double standards you guys are using!

You have stated that you LOVE guns. . that you have the RIGHT to use those guns to defend, not even your life, but your possession!

You would not hesitate to use those guns on an intruder, not even wondering if it is a 14 year old kid, or a hardened criminal. . .but now you are attacking Obama for "killing an American citizen?"

Give me a break. . .get real if you have ANY integrity left!

 

[GenSeneca]

So funny! I knew that was coming . . .ANYTHING Obama does is criticize, one way or another!

You missed the point... Unlike Pocket, I think it's a good thing that we kill terrorists - no matter WHO our president happens to be. If this had happened while Bush was president, I have no doubt Pockets would be siding with the ACLU:

ACLU criticizes killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen, calling it a ‘dangerous’ precedent

“We continue to believe that the targeted killing program violates both U.S. and international law,” Jameel Jaffer, the deputy legal director of the ACLU, said in an interview Friday morning with Need to Know. “As we’ve seen today, it’s a program under which U.S. citizens far from any battlefield can be executed by their own government without judicial process and on the basis of standards and evidence that are secret.”​

 

[BigRob]

So funny! I knew that was coming . . .ANYTHING Obama does is criticize, one way or another!

Clinton was criticized for not pursuing Bin laden. . .and thus ALLOWING 9/11 to happen!

Bush was worthless in doing anything against the heads of terrorism. . .but was given a white wash for his inefficiency, although in the mean time, he ruined this country economically with his spending on the ridiculous Iraq war!

This is absurd. The entire Iraq War, according to the CBO, cost us roughly a trillion dollars. And it is your assertion that that is the cause of all our economic problems? That is laughable, and so absurd it is hilarious.

$1 trillion dollars of war spending (which is government spending, ie stimulus to some) ruined the whole country? You really need to clarify your remark or rethink your argument.

Obama was accused of "being soft" on terrorism, but he succeeded in getting both Bin Laden and Alwaki. . .so now, since the Reps can no longer use the "soft on terrorism" propaganda, they go to "evil killing of defentless people,
one who was an American citizen!"

No one in this thread attacked Obama for this mission. I doubt anyone here is sad that Alwaki is dead.

But. . . when ONE MAN who may have been WRONGLY sentenced to death for killing ONE person 17 years ago has a chance to avoid death penalty. . . the Reps are just too happy to put him to death anyway, no matter if 7 out of 9 of the witnesses recanted!

You time and time again bring this up, and yet numerous courts upheld the conviction after the witnesses recanted (parts) of their testimony. How many courts have to uphold a conviction before you are convinced?

Come on guys, hypocrisy and hatred of Obama should really have some limit. . .either that or you have gone braindead following your "party line!"

The hypocrisy here is that you are blaming us for attacking Obama when no one did.

And, by the way, I am not rejoicing at this killing. I believe that, no matter what, it is a shame to have to put ANY human being to death. I am just amazed at the double standards you guys are using!

Yet again, you are ranting against a position that no one here has taken.

You have stated that you LOVE guns. . that you have the RIGHT to use those guns to defend, not even your life, but your possession!

You would not hesitate to use those guns on an intruder, not even wondering
if it is a 14 year old kid, or a hardened criminal. . .but now you are attacking Obama for "killing an American citizen?"

Give me a break. . .get real if you have ANY integrity left!

Frankly, what the hell are you talking about? Not a single person here has made any of the arguments you are ranting against. And why does it matter if the intruder is a 14 year old kid? Can that 14 year old somehow not cause harm to me or my family if they break in to my house?

 

[BigRob]

You missed the point... Unlike Pocket, I think it's a good thing that we kill terrorists - no matter WHO our president happens to be. If this had happened while Bush was president, I have no doubt Pockets would be siding with the ACLU:

ACLU criticizes killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen, calling it a ‘dangerous’ precedent

“We continue to believe that the targeted killing program violates both U.S. and international law,” Jameel Jaffer, the deputy legal director of the ACLU, said in an interview Friday morning with Need to Know. “As we’ve seen today, it’s a program under which U.S. citizens far from any battlefield can be
executed by their own government without judicial process and on the basis of standards and evidence that are secret.”​

Ah, so it is actually the Left generally making the argument that apparently we on the Right are hypocrites for making....even though we are not making that argument?

 

[GenSeneca]

Ah, so it is actually the Left generally making the argument that apparently we on the Right are hypocrites for making....even though we are not making that argument?

You lost me... But I think both you and I would give credit where credit is due no matter who the president happens to be. The hypocrites are the people who insisted that Bush was doing everything wrong and Obama is doing everything right, even though very little about how we fight terrorism has changed between the two administrations.