Another U.S. citizen assassinated by military drone

[rambone]

Look at Rambone, there is nothing that the government could say or do to prove to him that they didn't intentionally target and kill this person. Nothing. The fact that his person was a "child" and an American Citizen is all the prove that he needs that they are trying to kill all American Citizens and want to take over the world.

Show me the evidence that the US intentionally targeted an underage American Citizen in this strike, and that this kid wasn't in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Nobody knows. We aren't allowed to know. We are just supposed to watch TV and cheer when the bodies pile up.

The killing of Awlaki’s 16-year-old son

It is unknown whether the U.S. targeted the teenager or whether he was merely “collateral damage.” The reason that’s unknown is because the Obama administration refuses to tell us. Said the Post: “The officials would not discuss the attack in any detail, including who the target was.” So here we have yet again one of the most consequential acts a government can take — killing one of its own citizens, in this case a teenage boy — and the government refuses even to talk about what it did, why it did it, what its justification is, what evidence it possesses, or what principles it has embraced in general for such actions.

 

[badwolf.usmc]

Nobody knows. We aren't allowed to know. We are just supposed to watch TV and cheer when the bodies pile up.

The killing of Awlaki’s 16-year-old son
​

You quote Salon, shocking.

 

[rambone]

You quote Salon, shocking.

What does that mean? Are they a bad source? The author slammed Obama heavily in the article. I thought it would be a popular stance on INGO.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

And if this guy was walking down broadway, USA when the hellfire rained? Or maybe he was in his office cubicle? Then would all the deaths have still been the peoples own fault?

If he'd been walking down Broadway, he'd have been arrested and held for trial rather than being killed by a Hellfire missile. That's the point you folks don't appear to grasp. If we had the means to arrest and extradite these particular types of US citizens, we would do so, if for no other reason than the intelligence we could get from interrogating (not torturing) them.

 

[badwolf.usmc]

What does that mean? Are they a bad source? The author slammed Obama heavily in the article. I thought it would be a popular stance on INGO.

I tend not to read specifically anti-american rags like salon. It isn't news, it is an opinion site that reports specific things and tells you what to think about it. They ignore what is inconvenient to their agenda, but then blast others for doing the same. It is the height of hypocrisy.

Obama is like any other president, he has done things i agree with and has done things i don't agree with; i don't bash him just to bash him.

 

[rambone]

I tend not to read specifically anti-american rags like salon.

Well why didn't you say that they hated America? I'm not on their subscriber list or anything. I was on the internet trying to find more information about the topic at hand.

 

[1032JBT]

I tend not to read specifically anti-american rags like salon. It isn't news, it is an opinion site that reports specific things and tells you what to think about it. They ignore what is inconvenient to their agenda, but then blast others for doing the same. It is the height of hypocrisy.

Obama is like any other president, he has done things i agree with and has done things i don't agree with; i don't bash him just to bash him.

Huh...........sounds a lot like the political section of INGO

 

[badwolf.usmc]

Well why didn't you say that they hated America? I'm not on their subscriber list or anything. I was on the internet trying to find more information about the topic at hand.

I didn't say they hated America, i said they are anti-American. They only like the part of America they support and hate everything else. They love their version of America.

Huh...........sounds a lot like the political section of INGO

This is a discussion with multiple points of view, that is being told what to think. I don't like being told what to think.

 

[ATOMonkey]

You'll think what I tell you to think and you'll like it!!!!!

 

[Expat]

Send me your guns.... send me your guns...

 

[RockofStrength]

Send me your guns.... send me your guns...

And your bacon... and your bacon....

 

[steveh_131]

You quote Salon, shocking.

What is the point of bashing the source if you don't state any disagreement with it? What were they wrong about? Was there something incorrect stated?

 

[88GT]

Good question! What drives a hawk? I've been thinking about this lately.

I can't speak for the others, but none of the above. However, I have a sneaking suspicion that what you see as an eagerness to go to war is nothing more than a willingness to do it. And as usual, you gloss over the details, content to let superficial similarities comprise the heart of your argument.

 

[ATOMonkey]

I can't speak for the others, but none of the above. However, I have a sneaking suspicion that what you see as an eagerness to go to war is nothing more than a willingness to do it. And as usual, you gloss over the details, content to let superficial similarities comprise the heart of your argument.

I think that falls into the fear category.

If we weren't afraid that someone was going to come over here to kill or enslave us, what's the point of going over there?

Fear doesn't have to be crippling. It can be a great motivator.

I'm afraid that people will break into my house and try to harm my family. So, I have locks and guns.

Perhaps "fear" isn't the right word. Maybe concern, or apprehension, or something along those lines. It all boils down to the same thing though.

 

[dross]

Q: Is it justified to kill someone?
A: It depends.
Q: Okay, when is it justified to kill someone?
A: One such time is during a war.
Q: What's a war?
A: A war is when one group of people attack another group of people.
Q: So, if one group of people attack another group, both sides are justified in killing the people on the other side?
A: No. In a war, at least one side must be wrong, and therefore their killing is unjustified.
Q: How do you know if you're on the right side?
A: That's tricky, and subject to disagreement among reasonable people. In a free society, people agree on a process under which they'll go to war. This process is supposed to make sure that the wars are justified and necessary.
Q: Does that work?
A: Pretty much, if you consider how rare war is between two elected governments. Yet, in every war a substantial portion of the population will believe the war to be unjustified.
Q: If there is a process in place, why do some people believe the war is unjustified?
A: For a variety of reasons, just like in every war. Some don't believe in war in any case. Some argue that the process wasn't correctly followed. Some believe they were lied to as to the reasons behind the war. Some believe the motivation for the war is wrong, and the war isn't necessary.
Q: So if some people have been against every war, how do we decide if a war is justified?
A: We follow a process, though the legitimacy of that process will always be questioned.

Q: Okay, let's assume the process was followed, since it sounds like we'll never come to agreement about the justification or the necessity. Assuming for argument's sake that the war is necessary and justified through our process, killing is justified?
A: It depends. We believe that we should only try to kill people fighting against us.
Q: So we can only kill them if they're actually shooting at us?
A: No. Soldiers are always legitimate targets no matter what they're doing. So are military leaders, including civilian military leaders. People who support the war effort of our enemies with resources are also legitimate targets.
Q: What about people who support the war effort of our enemies through propaganda or other non-violent methods.
A: This is controversial recently, but throughout history this had been considered justified. Reasonable people disagree.
Q: What about civilians who aren't fighting or helping?
A: We shouldn't target them, but at the same time, we may kill some of them.
Q: How is that justified?
A: If we are justified in fighting the war, then it is our enemy who is responsible for the civilians we kill accidentally.
Q: What if our enemy straps children to them and fights us. Can we kill them?
A: We are fully justified in killing children who our enemy puts in danger. We have a long history, however, of trying to avoid hurting non-combatants.
Q: So, who decides who is a combatant, and who isn't? Shouldn't there be a trial?
A: That's just not practical.
Q: So we have to trust our government to tell us the truth?
A: No, we don't have to trust them. We just have to recognize that we can never know the truth about everything. All we can do is try to make the process as good as we can.
Q: So you're for this war?
A: Yes.
Q: Why? Do you trust that the government is telling the truth?
A: No.
Q: Then how can you be for the war?
A: My eyes tell me that we have a very real enemy. They've attacked us many times in the past. My reading of history informs me that letting people attack you without retaliation leads to more attacks, and eventually to a society's downfall.
Q: You don't think this is all made up?
A: Some of it is made up, some of it is for bad reasons, much of it is conducted incompetently and immorally.
Q: Then how can you be for it?
A: Because that's true of all wars. And some are necessary, even if they are conducted imperfectly, for imperfect reasons. I believe this is one of them.

A: This isn't about purity. It's about survival.

 

[steveh_131]

Q: What group of people are we at war with?

 

[Expat]

I think that falls into the fear category.

If we weren't afraid that someone was going to come over here to kill or enslave us, what's the point of going over there?

Fear doesn't have to be crippling. It can be a great motivator.

I'm afraid that people will break into my house and try to harm my family. So, I have locks and guns.

Perhaps "fear" isn't the right word. Maybe concern, or apprehension, or something along those lines. It all boils down to the same thing though.

I don't think it is always fear. We went to war after 9/11 with the Taliban in Afghanistan because they refused to surrender to us, the perpetrators of 9/11. We warned them what was going to happen. We gave them plenty of time to comply. They decided to not do so. They paid the price. So that was not out of fear IMHO. That was righteous indignation or the rendering of justice.

The Iraqi War, you may be able to argue had a fear component. GWB decided that if al Qaeda would perpetrate an attack such as they did, then we could not allow States friendly with terrorists to obtain weapons of mass destruction. So for right or wrong, we invaded them. I think I can debate either side of this one. Both sides have some good arguments.

 

[dross]

Q: What group of people are we at war with?

A loose affiliation of people and organizations spread across dozens of countries. They have several traits in common:
1. They are Muslim
2. They wish to use violence to institute a society ruled by their belief system, which is a mix of religious and political
3. Most of them are Arab

Since there are many people who fit this set of traits who are we are not fighting against, and because these people are not confined to a particular country with a government, fighting against them is uniquely difficult. It leads to many mistakes, which are then exploited by our enemies.

 

[Expat]

A loose affiliation of people and organizations spread across dozens of countries. They have several traits in common:
1. They are Muslim
2. They wish to use violence to institute a society ruled by their belief system, which is a mix of religious and political
3. Most of them are Arab

Since there are many people who fit this set of traits who are we are not fighting against, and because these people are not confined to a particular country with a government, fighting against them is uniquely difficult. It leads to many mistakes, which are then exploited by our enemies.

These people are also carrying out genocide on the African continent with the world turning a blind eye to it. The so-called Arab Spring has also brought about a religious cleansing in many countries that used to be much more tolerant. The Copts in Egypt are being killed and their churches destroyed. This is also happening in several other countries over there.

 

[steveh_131]

A loose affiliation of people and organizations spread across dozens of countries. They have several traits in common:
1. They are Muslim
2. They wish to use violence to institute a society ruled by their belief system, which is a mix of religious and political
3. Most of them are Arab

Since there are many people who fit this set of traits who are we are not fighting against, and because these people are not confined to a particular country with a government, fighting against them is uniquely difficult. It leads to many mistakes, which are then exploited by our enemies.

Do you include anybody with this belief system? Or only people who are actively pursuing it against the U.S.?